[Zac Bears]: Test, test. Good, Shane. Medford City Council, 15th regular meeting, September 9th, 2025 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Six present, one absent. Please rise to salute the flag. 25137 announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. 25137 offered by Councilor Lazzaro and President Bears. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council acknowledge and celebrate National Recovery Month. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you guys. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I just want to thank you guys. I completely agree. I think talking about recovery is something to celebrate, something to be proud of, something that the community can join in with and help people with is the way to think about it. Fights any stigma and brings it around too. We want our community members to thrive and be healthy and stay here with us. So I'm really thank you for your work. On the motion to council is Lazzaro, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Callahan. We have everyone so I can voice vote. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Records, records of the meeting of August 5th were passed to Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to table by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. Refer to committee for further discussion. So this section is to refer to committee for further discussion. So I'm going to read them and then I'm going to take it as a motion from the proponent to send it to committee and we'll take a vote on it. Refer to committee for further discussion to 5138 offered by Council as our own Councilor Tseng, whereas there have been numerous immigration and customs enforcement raids in Medford over the past several months disrupting the peace in Medford and ripping apart families, and whereas it is clear that the metric community shows up to care for its neighbors when they are in need. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council hold a meeting in the Committee on Public Health and Community Safety to discuss methods to protect dependents of Medford residents who have been abducted and or deported by Federal Immigration Enforcement Officers. Be it further resolved that the Committee discuss issuing Freedom of Information Act requests to ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement upon receiving knowledge of the arrest and detention of any Medford resident. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to refer to the public health and community safety committee seconded by seconded by council is our Mister clerk please call the all those in favor. Opposed motion passes. Whereas the federal government has been summarily cutting important social services like Medicare and Medicaid, Section 8 of the Housing Voucher Program, amid record homelessness and food assistance for hungry families, be it resolved that the Medford City Council hold a meeting in the Committee on Public Health and Community Safety to discuss methods whereby the city can protect vulnerable residents and residents can access other services via local and state nonprofit sources to get the help they need. be it further resolved that members of the Health Department be invited to that meeting. On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to send to the Committee on Public Health and Community Safety, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Hearings 25130, petition for a grant of location, National Grid. North Andover, Massachusetts, proposed installation of new gas main between 136 and 190 Boston Ave. National grid plan WL 1491849. We were hereby notified by the order of the Medford City Council that the Medford City Council will hold a public hearing in the Howard F. Alden Chambers at Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, and via Zoom on Tuesday, September 9th at 7 p.m., a link to be posted no later than Friday, September 5th, on a petition by Massachusetts electrical company DBA National Grid for permission to install a new gas main, including necessary sustaining and protecting fixtures, located at 136-190 Boston Ave, wherefore it requests that after due notice and hearing as provided by law, it be granted a grant of location permit for a new gas main on Boston Ave, together with such sustaining and protecting fixtures as it may find necessary for the transmission of gas, in accordance with plan WO-149-1849, originally dated July 14th, 2025, and received and filed in the Office of the City Clerk on August 21st, 2025, and available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk, Medford City Hall, Room 103, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford. The following are the streets and highways referred to in plan W0149-1849, 136 to 190 Boston Ave. National grid to install new gas main is depicted on the plan. The engineering recommends that this grant of location be approved with the following conditions. One, the grant of location is limited to approximately 125 feet of dual eight-inch gas main with the southernmost sidewalk across Boston Avenue Bridge depicted on the plan. Before starting the work the contractor shall notify dig safe and obtain all applicable permits from the engineering division. The project must obtain a trench permit, pursuant to section 74141 of the city ordinances prior to commencing work. No other utility structures conduits duck banks pipes or any other appurtenances are adversely impacted National Grid shall ensure that all sewer water and drain lines are marked for any excavation. Project site must be swept after installation or daily and shall be kept free of debris for the duration of installation. At least 72 hours prior to the start of the project, National Grid must coordinate about our communications with the Director of Communications and submit any required information that may be requested to effectively inform the public. Approved, City Engineer. Signed, City Clerk. All right, do we have a representative from National Grid? We do. If you could describe the project and then we'll ask any questions and then we'll open the public hearing.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we have any questions from members of the council? Seeing none, I will declare the public hearing open. As part of this public hearing, if you could say if you're in favor, in opposition, or otherwise, and members of the public are welcome to speak.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Is there anyone either in person or on Zoom who would like to speak regarding this project? If you're in person, you can come to the podium. If you're on Zoom, you can raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, I'm declaring the public hearing closed. Is there a motion? On the motion approved by Councilor Leming, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Diana. All right. Petitions, presentations, and similar papers. Petition for a common vixen license, CB Scoops. Do we have CB Scoops here present? Great. If you could tell us a little bit about your application, and then we'll turn it over to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Right. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve seconded by seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Second the affirmative, then the negative. The motion passes. Thanks. Good luck. 2-5-1-3-1, petition for amendment to common victors license, extended hours, Great American Beer Hall. Do we have a proponent? Yes, we do. Give me one second to find your paperwork in here.
[Zac Bears]: That I knew. All right, looks like the request is for 7 a.m. to 2 a.m. every day. Brief explanation, early morning coffee, late night pizza. And with that, I'll turn it over to you guys to explain what you're looking for. Brian Zarather, 142 Mystic Ave, Great American Beer Hall.
[Zac Bears]: So actually, recently this week, we've come to an agreement with Nassau Donuts to move them from Somerville to the Great American Beer Hall. So early morning coffee, yeah, donuts, it's gonna be pretty cool. So that's the 7 a.m. request, which I couldn't be more excited for. Gonna start to build out pretty much immediately on the coffee stuff, and so it's gonna be a pretty cool, fun concept. Late night, it's we're really losing this crowd to Somerville and Everett. And so there's the 2am licenses available over there. And, you know, We've been open a year and we made 1000 mistakes and we've learned a lot about what works and what doesn't. And so I know the noise complaints from our neighbors, we've taken very seriously. We've got rid of the outside DJs, we're now shutting the garage door, doing everything that we can to mitigate that.
[Zac Bears]: Lastly, we're a year in and we've been approached by Nextdoor to do a hotel that we're talking to, apartments across the street. And all of this really started with the Great American Beer Hall, like opening up on Mystic Ave and we're finally seeing some development opportunities at our abutting properties. So I know we can't please everyone, But I think the greater good of Medford, this is, this is really important for us. Thanks. We'll go to members of the council and then we'll go to public comment. Councilor Scarpelli, then Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: I'm available.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to some other councilors, but if you want to go first, you guys, if you want to say anything about what you've been doing or answering the councilor's questions. We can wait to the end. Okay. go to Councilor Lazzaro, then Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Lazzaro, Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Are you guys already 1 a.m.? Yes. They're already 1 a.m.
[Zac Bears]: All right. So the motion is to amend to, uh, 7 a.m. to 2 a.m. Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and 1 a.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Sunday. Sunday, Monday, Wednesday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. I guess I could have said it that way. All right. Do we have any other comments from Councilors? All right. Yes, on Sundays, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, it would be 7 AM to 1 AM. And then on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, it would be 7 AM to 2 AM.
[Zac Bears]: So what are your current hours versus what's your license?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We will go to
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: All right, do you have any more questions for the petitioner? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this issue, either in person or on Zoom? If you'd like to speak in person, you can come to the podium. If you'd like to speak on Zoom, you can raise your hand and we'll come back to you guys. Thanks, you can come to the podium. Hi, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, thank you. I spoke with our economic development director. And I think he had some thoughts on the on the music specifically. So I do see his hand. But before I go to him, is there anyone else who wants to speak on this? He was here or on zoom if anyone else would like to come to the podium and talk about this, their experience or, or raise your hand on zoom before I go to our economic development director.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this matter? Sure. Go to the podium, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, I'm gonna go to our economic development director. Oh, yeah, I'm gonna go to the economic development director on Zoom. Sal, if you could just let us know what your thoughts are and if you could talk about some of the restrictions on live music that we talked about, or music in general.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Great. Thank you. But we can hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thanks. All right. Go to Vice President Collins and then Councilor Leming. I have a few questions myself.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, go to Councilor Leming then Councilor Callahan. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, just one second. All right, we'll go back to you guys. If you wanna talk about maybe additional mitigation, you might be willing to consider around the sound. You know, I was in there with you guys when it was a shell, and then I was in there right after you had opened. And, you know, it's a big space. And I mean, we're really glad that it's been a successful business. But one thing I will say, I have noticed when I've been in there is it's a big space, and there's a lot of noise bouncing around. So it doesn't surprise me that we've had some of the noise, maybe, you know, that that building's maybe not capturing all of it. So I was wondering if maybe you could talk a little bit more about that. The garage door is our biggest issue. So when the garage door is shut, it's like night and day. You can't hear outside. When the door is open and we have the DJ or the band up back, it just flows down and it goes into the street. The key for us is getting that door closed at 9pm every night, which we were not doing. So it was a learning curve, something that we talked to with Sal, and we came back and said, hey, we got to get this door shut. And that's the only way that we're going to mitigate the noise going down the street. And how long have you been close to that? Like a week and a half. A week and a half.
[Zac Bears]: If you don't mind, I do and I normally wouldn't do this to just someone who spoke in public comment, but to our friend who is the sound person. Have you noticed a difference. Since the garage doors been closed. Last Friday. If you could come, could you come to the podium? Sorry, I gotta, if we're gonna say more than a thumbs up or a thumbs down, we gotta hear your name.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, I appreciate it. So it sounds like it might be somewhat better. But, you know, it's only been doing it, you've only had one, one DJ night since then, it sounds like so, you know, a lot of sample sites to go on here. You know, I had spoken with our economic development director, I think, if we put the condition of no outdoor music and closing the door at 9pm, 9pm, and also would recommend maybe a little bit of a different look, 30 days, 90 days and 180 days. So that would be October 9th, December 9th and March 9th. If we get the noise complaints, any noise complaints or code complaints. So to folks, if you're hearing noise or if you are seeing something in the neighborhood, send that to the code enforcement team. They will send that information to us. And then we would be able to review those complaints at each of those junctures. And if we have to go back to the 1 a.m. time, if we're seeing a significant impact, That would be a way that we could take in the complaints that residents in the neighborhood are sending if there continue to be issues. Maybe we come back and have another conversation at one of those points about additional sound stuff or some some changes that you guys have been thinking about and we can continue the conversation. But I think those would be conditions that we could we could see if this works. And if it doesn't work, we could talk about more solutions. Absolutely. Okay. Would someone just amend to include those conditions? Thank you, Councilor Sanders. So we have a motion by Vice President Collins to approve as amended to 7 a.m. to 1 a.m. Sunday through Wednesday, 7 a.m. to 2 a.m. Thursday to Saturday with the conditions of no outdoor music and closing the large door at 9 p.m. and then a 30 day, 90 day and 180 day review to request that the building department and code enforcement send complaints that they receive about this to the council so that we can, if we have to consider reverting back to the earlier hours. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. And what do you guys do in regards to trash, like in the immediate vicinity of your, you know, if you see something on the sidewalk? Yeah, yeah, we have, we have someone there five days a week picking up trash in the morning at our site, so we keep it very clean, that's really important. Does that extend to like missing out maybe across the street? Yeah, I do the, I do 134, 151, and 142. Okay. All right. Do we have any more questions from members of the council? Or do we need the motion read back? Seeing none, on the motion by Vice President Collins to approve as amended with conditions, seconded by Councilor Leming, and again, this would be 7 a.m. to 1 a.m. Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, 7 a.m. to 2 a.m. Thursday, Friday, Saturday. They cannot have outdoor music and have to close the large door. They call it the garage door. I said it's a large door. at 9 PM, and then we're going to receive complaints in 30 days, 90 days, and 180 days, any complaints that are sent to our building department and code enforcement. And if we receive a significant number of complaints, we'll come back and review, pulling those later hours back. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, five in the affirmative, two in the negative, the motion passes. 25132, petition for a common mixtures license, Locolito. Do we have Locolito in person or on the line? All right, there he is. The great coffee shop mystery of Medford is here to tell us what his plans are. Alvaro, how you doing? Good, thanks. Good to see you. Good to see you. So when am I buying coffee at Localito?
[Zac Bears]: All right, tell us a little bit more about your application.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we have any questions for the applicant, Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we're all excited. Somebody said on Reddit, they said, if you mention that they post on their social media, it'll be another month before they open, so.
[Zac Bears]: People are excited, it's almost fall, it's warm drink season, you know. Hopefully we can deliver. I'll stop badgering you, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, slowly but surely. Putting the puzzle together.
[Zac Bears]: Get my money at breakfast, lunch and dinner.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: It's our duty to try to get every secret we can. All right. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, unless Sal, do you wanna? I'll recognize the economic development director.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Great. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Good luck. Thank you, I hope see you all in that place. I was at Tacuba on the first day, so.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much, good luck. All right, 25-133, petition for a common ventures license, Inspire Cafe. Do we have Inspire Cafe with us, either in person or on Zoom? I'm not seeing them here in person, I'm not seeing a hand on Zoom. Councilor Scarpelli, have you had a chance to review this? I know this is for... Oh, George, I forgot to unmute you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah, and we did re send that out. I think the link that got posted to the events calendar by the communications department didn't have that on it. So that might be the issue. If you are hearing from people directly, you know, the link on the city council's meeting portal is functioning as normal. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. 25.134, petition for a common victor's license for sidebar. Do we have? Yes, we do. Wonderful. We knew there was one outstanding thing. We heard it got addressed. Yes. So I'll recognize you to tell us a little bit more about your business and then we'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Great, I will go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. So I believe we have a motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Leming. Seeing no further questions, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears. Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Good luck.
[Zac Bears]: And have a good hockey season.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna go to Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to take papers 25-141 and 25-142. Seconded by? Seconded. Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. One second here. Paper 25141, Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund Appointment, Teda DeRosa. Dear Ms. President, members of Medford City Council, recommendation of the Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board of Trustees, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following candidates to serve on the Board of Trustees for the Medford Affordable Housing Trust Funds. Sincerely, Mayor Brantling O'Kirk. Hi guys.
[Zac Bears]: So if you want to introduce and talk about why you want to be on the board and then we'll take a vote.
[Zac Bears]: great. Thank you so much. Congratulations on being recommended for appointment.
[Zac Bears]: I don't see any issues, but, you know, I'm just one of the seven. I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Lemme.
[Zac Bears]: Great, on the motion approved by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. We'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: It was budget night.
[Zac Bears]: Great. On the motion by, who did I say it was by? Council is our seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you for your service to our city. 25142, submitted by Mayor Brianna Lago-Kern, Medford Community Preservation Committee appointment, Myisha Majumder, dear President Ferris and members of the Medford City Council, I respectfully request to recommend that your honorable body confirm the appointment of Myisha Majumder of Medford to the Community Preservation Committee for a term to expire September 10th, 2026. Myisha will be present during the meeting. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Brianna Lago-Kern, Mayor. Myisha, I see you on Zoom, so I'll unmute you. Congratulations on your recommendation for appointment. If you want to tell us a little bit about why you want to serve on the CPC and then we will go from there.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we have any questions? Is there a motion on the motion to approve by Councilor Callahan? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Congratulations and thank you so much for your service to the city.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: I think they're here on 25 140 capital stabilization and water and capital stabilization appropriation requests.
[Zac Bears]: The motion of Councilor Scarpelli to take 25 140 seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. Opposed motion passes. It's a bit of my bare brain legal current capital stabilization fund water and sewer capital stabilization fund appropriation requests. Dear president bears and city councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves the appropriations of one capital stabilization fund and the amount of $2,346,101 and zero cents on the following items DPW $357,287 for a four wheel drive dump truck and sender with plow. $300,000 for design development of the seven-acre lawn cemetery expansion, $200,000 for stump removal, $180,000 for removal of displaced grave soil, $154,592 for a fleet tow truck, $100,158 for a three-quarter ton pickup truck with lift gate, $94,055 for a dump truck, $60,000 for field refurbishment, and $32,000 for a leaf vacuum and leaf box for a dump truck. I'm going to pause the reading there. We'll take them in order. We'll do DPW facilities, fire, general, police, and then we'll come back to water and sewer. So let's start with the DPW.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have any questions on the DPW items in front of us? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On that point, Are there alternative non-cement, non-concrete, non-asphalt uses that we could use a tree pit for? Like, could we put smaller shrub-like plantings or flowers or something that's not a tree?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Now, are we going to pave over the tree pits that no longer fit our sizing and then we'll go back in the future and break that again or what are we going to do?
[Zac Bears]: Is there any kind of intermediate solution, like a small garden instead of just going to... Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Great. I'm gonna go to Councilor Tseng. And then I have a couple more questions on the cemetery, but I'll come back to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Does that estimate, the 10 to 15, include both the removal of the soil, you know, the the giant pile of dirt that's next to the lots right now in the back of, and the expansion, or is that just the expansion into the current conservation land? So the 300k would just be the seven acre design. Okay. Yep.
[Zac Bears]: I meant more your 10 to 15 year estimate of lengthening the service on the cemetery. That would just be the seven acre expansion. Got it. Do you have cemetery questions. Okay. Okay, let's stick with the cemetery and then we'll come to the leaf vacuum. It's just like 30 things on here. I don't want to jump in.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I have a couple questions and then maybe we can go to the discussion. I also see we have the president of M-BELT here. I don't know if just listening or planning to say something. Just listening, okay. I'm also on the M-BELT board. We've talked about this a little bit. I've talked with my fellow board members about it. I have some concerns about the expansion. I guess my main question is if we could just talk about kind of the big picture here. Right now, when are we thinking that Oak Grove is going to no longer be able to have new folks buried there, which four to five years is the estimate that we're using right now. All right. And that includes the if we remove that soil pile is that add some time.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And then if we were to, and then kind of this project that we're talking about, and maybe if folks have more questions about it, I've reviewed it pretty extensively, so if folks want to look more into it. this would be, you know, when the Brooks Estate, when all of that conservation negotiation happened in the 90s, there's essentially some land currently used for like some storage of materials and the stumps, dumping of stumps, that's on what I think most folks going into there would consider Kind of on the Brooks estate side of the access drive, but it's cemetery land and has some cemetery use this would be expanding the cemetery into that land so be kind of changing that from more of like the forested more conservation use to more like the cemetery use on the other side of the access drive. Is that fair fair.
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate that. Yeah, I think along those lines, you know, I have some I appreciate what you know the collaborative approach and trying to adjust the design I think that's really important, I think, maybe even going further down the road and figure out how we can align. You know some of the funding that and belt has received the works of state land trust has received for the access drive. I think maybe turning this into a more collaborative project overall for the whole area. might be the way to go down the road here. Because I personally, you know, the concept design and where we've been at so far, you know, I personally have some concerns, you know, as a Councilor, as someone who just uses the area, as a Berks estate board member about the concept. It sounds like we're already talking about making some changes as we move through the design phase. But I think there are some real questions to be raised about, you know, if we're extending the life of the cemetery not very long, but making permanent changes to, you know, some of the one of the largest, certainly the largest city-owned green space, you know, in the city. How do we balance that? And if we can do it in a way that really enhances that space and makes it more accessible, you know, for both the Brooks Estate Land Trust and for the cemetery, you know, maybe there's a maintenance, maybe we do the maintenance yard and shed and But we can do that in a way where, you know, that can help with the new access drive. Those kinds of things, I think, are considerations that I would want to take into account. And I guess, saying all that, my question is, you know, do you think that those considerations and those collaborative conversations are something we're going to be able to incorporate in the design process that will be funded through this appropriation?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Yeah. And I, and I appreciate that. And I think more just what I'm saying is since we're starting the conversation tonight, this is kind of the, the first, the first appropriation on the design. Like I want to have the full scope of the conversation in front of us. You know, who knows if I'll be, be around for those conversations here or not, but I, you know, I would have a very hard time voting for an appropriation of three or $4 million for something that looks a lot like the concept that came out. I'd have a much, I think, and I think a lot of folks have a much. you know, I think it would be a better project and a better proposal if we were able to incorporate more of multiple uses, not just that this is not just a cemetery expansion, but this is about what does that part of the city, that city-owned land, whether it's M-Belt or the cemetery land, look like for the long-term future? Because it's a really significant investment. And I think if we're saying, well, it's $3.5 million to keep the cemetery going for eight or 10 more years, that's an argument, but we have a lot of competing interests for city resources. Maybe that's not an argument that wins the day. If it's we're going to spend five or $6 million to keep the cemetery going and keep, you know, really enhance access to this, you know, 50 acres of open space for the next 200 years, you know, that's a different kind of benefit, I think. So just want to have that framing around it. Absolutely. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I think maybe if nothing else, although I think we actually agree on a lot between the, works of state in the cemetery. I think the fact that both of those areas have gone under addressed and underserved for a really long time is a point of unity. Um, and you know, I think also points us in the direction of a solution in my opinion. So thank you for having that conversation. Absolutely. All right. Leaf vacuum. Councilors are Oh, Yep.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Mike, are you going to talk about the fire pickup trucks or the police cruisers? Let's do that now, too, so we can get you out of here, too. Oh, OK. All right. We'll do the fire pickup trucks, $166,000 for two pickup trucks?
[Zac Bears]: Great. We got the chief. We got you. What are we doing here?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Anything else you want to add, Chief Evans?
[Zac Bears]: All right. Pretty simple. Great. And then maybe it looks like I think for police, we also only have the cruiser. So we'll take you guys. And if you want Mike to do the talking, that's your call, but.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we have any questions on the fire and police vehicles from the council? Councilor Leming?
[Zac Bears]: Well, we can't give you any, but we just want to know.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no, I mean, we hear you. The only thing I can do is give you less cruisers. Yeah, that's the only thing the council can do we can we can just cut, we can increase we can amend we can just cut or say no, or say yes. Hey, even then, right? So if we, I think having a conversation about getting on a schedule, especially given the scheduling concerns that are now an issue for you with the timeframe of ordering these things.
[Zac Bears]: Great. That's helpful information I have too. All right, I'll go to Councilor Callahan, and then I got one more question for you, Mike. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: And we've done two or three engines and a ladder in the last five years. Does that sound about right?
[Zac Bears]: Do we have any other questions on the vehicles in this appropriation? Mike, I just have one question for you. How are you guys doing down there in fleet staff wise with the volume of work that you guys have to do?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. When you say waiting for applicants, you got some open positions or I have two open positions right now.
[Zac Bears]: Say again? When you say the market, you mean the compensation or? That's part of it.
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. We really appreciate your team, too. I just wanted to... I can sense that you're working a little harder than you, you know, maybe a little overwork.
[Zac Bears]: All right.
[Zac Bears]: I know.
[Zac Bears]: I know how hard they work and, you know, Mike's usually, usually level-headed, but I could tell tonight he's been maybe a little overworked. All right. Thanks you guys. We're going to go to facilities and then we'll come to Owen for water sewer. Do we have Paul Riggi on Zoom for the facilities items? I see him, I just asked him to unmute. Hey, Paul, how you doing?
[Zac Bears]: Good, I'll read the items. I'll read the items real quick. We had 340,000 for ADA compliant renovations for two bathrooms on the first floor of City Hall, 79,200 for design work at the Hegner Center, 32,000 for fire department paving projects, and 30,000 for the replacement of the hot water heater at the police station.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. Thank you, Paul. Do we have any questions on that from members of the council? All right. Seeing none, the only other item in the general capital stabilization fund was $16,500 for updates to the capital improvement plan. The chief of staff did tell me she wasn't going to be able to be here tonight to talk about that. Yeah. So we'll go to the Water Sewer Capital Stabilization. We have City Engineer Wartella here. We have $175,000 for additional costs relating to a sewer line rehab project and $60,000 for a sewer survey project related to inflow and infiltration. Owen, what's up with this?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we have any questions? Councilor Callahan?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think just the where Councilor Callahan is getting is we have tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to work on the water and sewer system. Yes. You know, there's big backlog.
[Zac Bears]: I know it's an oversimplification, but let's say when you started making the plans to fix it, the backlog was 100%. Have we made it 10% of the way through it yet? No, no.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And to Owen's point, so you're making one point, Tim, which is that the rates were too low for too long. It's basically paying the minimum on your credit card. You're not actually addressing the issue. And it's built up over time.
[Zac Bears]: But Owen also made the point that one of the main ways that we're trying to address it right now is like when new development comes in, getting them to make significant investments. Yes. So, you know, There's essentially two things we increase in the water rates, or, you know, when we're trying to bring this new growth and that's a main way that we're addressing this problem as well.
[Zac Bears]: So you're saying that, for example, when we see a large project, we're making the developers replace the infrastructure?
[Zac Bears]: But point being that if there were no new developments, then the ratepayers are paying for it entirely because we have to do it anyway.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions on this? Do we have a motion on the appropriation paper on the motion approved by Council, let me second by second by Councilman Lazzaro. All those in favor. Sorry actually, Mr. Clerk please call the roll. Thank you very much. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Is there anyone who wants to talk about this.
[Zac Bears]: We do not have, sorry, go ahead. There's no one here to talk about it.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not sure what it's for. Last time they did the capital improvement plan, it was Collins Center. So I would guess it's probably Collins Center to update it. Okay. But I didn't get that information.
[Zac Bears]: All right, not seeing anyone else on this paper. So Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, 90 negative, the motion passes. Thanks, you guys. I told folks that we'd do an executive session at 8.30, it's 9.15. Could somebody move to take that so we can move into executive session? On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, I'll take paper 25.144, and then I'll read it, and then we'll have to take a vote to go into executive session. So this is just on the motion to take it off the table. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. All right, paper 25144 litigation settlement request for executive session votes may be taken dear President Bears and members of the city council. I respectfully request and recommend your honorable body and enter Executive Session pursuant to General Law Chapter 30A Section 21A.3 to discuss strategy with respect to litigation concerning the matter of Teamsters Local 25 and the City of Medford, AAA No. 01-24-007-8702. I also recommend that the Council's agenda state in the Executive Session Notice that votes may be taken. Attorney Steven Johnson from KP Law will be present to provide the council with guidance on this matter. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Brian Oliver and Mayor. I'm going to create a breakout room and we're going to go into room 207. Kevin, you're welcome to join us if you want. Give me one second there. And then we'll come back into open session to finish the rest of the agenda. On the motion to enter executive session by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. We're going into executive session. We'll return to open session. On the motion to reconvene an open session by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Council Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. All right, reverting to the regular order of business. We have 25103 offered by Vice President Collins, proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance, other corridors, districts. This was tabled from the August 5th meeting at the request of the Community Development Board. We still do not have an agreement between myself and the mayor to announce on the zoning project. So I would recommend that we table this until we know if we're gonna update the city's 60 year old broken zoning. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Motion of Vice President Collins to table, seconded by?
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 25.124, the Tree Committee Ordinance. Solicitor Foley has asked that we give a little more time for review on this. So is there a motion on the floor? On the motion to table by Councilor Callahan, seconded by? Seconded. Seconded by Councilor Leming, all those in favor? opposed motion passes 25135 offered by Vice President Collins be a result or whereas the Fair Act would protect workers in Massachusetts. from harmful effects of proliferating AI by prohibiting employers from relying exclusively on AI decision-making systems to make employment-related decisions, by restricting the surveillance of workers and the collection, use, and sharing of surveillance data, by shoring up worker autonomy protections and protecting workers from reprisal for refusing or questioning the directives of AI-generated instructions. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Medford City Council expresses support of H-77 and S-35, an act fostering artificial intelligence responsibility, also known as the FAIR Act, We have further resolved the city clerk forward a copy of this resolution to the Medford legislative delegation, as well as to the chairs of the joint committee on advanced information technology, the internet and cyber security vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Is there any further discussion members of the Council? Any discussion members of the public? I thought there might be. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing no further comments, no further hands on Zoom, on the motion, all those in favor. motion passes 25 1, 3, 6, offer by Councilor Leming. Whereas Medford's current inclusionary zoning as defined under chapter 94 section 94.8.1.6 states that at least a certain percent of new units have to be affordable as defined under Mass General Law and are tiered as follows. 10 to 24 lots or units, 10% affordable units, 25 to 49 lots or units, 13% affordable units, 50 or more lots or units, 15% affordable units, and whereas Medford's current policy under 94.18 dictates that if the percentage were not a whole number, it needs to be rounded up, and whereas this creates huge incentives to build the discrete intervals, for instance, strongly incentivizing nine-unit properties but not 10, or strongly incentivizing 20-unit properties but not 21, and whereas other communities such as Watertown and Somerville have incentive plans that allow for fractional payments to the Affordable Housing Trust in lieu of affordable units. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City of Benford update its incentive structures to allow fractional payments. Be it further resolved that this paper be referred to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board for specific recommendations on how to update the above-referenced policies. Be it further resolved that this paper be referred to the Administration and Finance Committee for further discussion. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Um, if you want to go over it again, Councilor Leming, but I think this should go to planning and permitting, not to administration and finance, but go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of council, I'm going to refer to the planning and permitting committee seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Communications from the Mayor. 24153 submitted by Mayor Brandon Lungo-Koehn. Approval of funding for lot apartment claim over 2,500. Judith Dean for $3,448.36. I'll go to Solicitor Foley. Welcome.
[Zac Bears]: This is the City Solicitor of the City of Medford.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I'll go to Councilor Collins and Councilor Scarapelli. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Councilor Scarpellilli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Vice President Collins. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: We'll see you next meeting. I don't think so. Stick it out, stick it out.
[Zac Bears]: No, not yet. So we'll have a little more time.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: I think we'll be out of here quickly. 24.5145 submitted by Mayor Brianna Lago-Kern. Request for a food truck permit. Request for a food truck permit for chicken and rice guys, September 25th, 2025. Councilor Collins, Councilor Scarpelli, please stop shouting over me. Said Councilor Collins, Councilor Scarpelli, please stop shouting over me. Dear President Beyers and members of the City Council, on behalf of the below entity, I respectfully submit to the Medford City Council the following request for a food truck permit in the city of Medford. In addition to council approval then there's a required to adhere to health department food and safety requirements business name chicken and rice guys, September 27 2025 12pm to 4pm cotton shell event mystic river celebration, and I'm reading it to read this part. Spend the afternoon at the Condon Shell at Medford's Biggest Arts Festival. Watch live performances, browse local artisan crafts, get to know local businesses and organizations, eat food, and take part in any number of fun activities for all ages, including a knuckle bones play area for kids. I don't know what that means, so you should go to the Mystic River Celebration to find it out. You want to? All right, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's great. Enjoy. For the kids. Mystic River Celebration, September 27, 2025, noon to 4pm. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehnmayer. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed motion passes public participation, Sharon DSO had to go, she's requested that we table this is there a motion to table the motion table by Councilor Scarpelli seconded by seconded by Councilor Lazzaro all those in favor. Opposed motion passes is there a motion on the floor on the motion to adjourn. Okay, yes. All right. Polar participation. Is there anyone else would like to speak on any topic for three minutes. We got one person name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You aced it. And I just want to say that, yeah, I think the messaging is horrific. It's certainly not the first instance of awful, hateful speech that we've seen on that message board. And residents have persistently stood up to say that it doesn't represent our community. But I understand your position. And I'm going to go quickly to Councilor Leming and then Vice President Collins. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, Micah. I'm going to go to Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're just gonna we're gonna take it. I'm sorry, Micah. Thank you. I got to respect the rules of this. All right. Thank you for bringing that up. I think we're going to hear more about it. I am also hopeful that we will see some of the surrounding businesses and residents. You know, we saw the last time a few months ago when they had a sign, Modern Pastry, put up a sign right next to it, directly opposing it. That is another way to use speech to counteract speech like this. So there's a lot of different approaches that we could take. Is there a motion on the floor? Is there anyone else like to speak? Public participation either in person or on Zoom. All right, seeing none, is there a motion on the floor? On the motion adjourned by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for the committee for hosting this event and my fellow candidates for being here today. I'm Zach Baers. Six years ago, I ran for Medford City Council because I saw what decades of shrinking government and reactive decision-making had done to our city. Medford had become a city of no. No, you can't get help at City Hall unless you know the right person. No, the city won't address the housing crisis that's made it too hard to build a future here. No, the city won't stop the slow bleed of decades of budget cuts that left our streets crumbling and our schools without the resources students and teachers need to thrive. But together, we've accomplished so much to do big things, make hard decisions, and start to become a City of Yes. A city that says yes to more transparent, open government, with clear goals, processes, and principles for how we make decisions together. Yes to finally creating a comprehensive plan, already rezoning Mystic Ave, and doing the rezoning project that will encourage real and transformative growth, build more housing, and revitalize our business districts. Yes to passing questions seven and eight last year to stop the bleeding and invest in our schools and DPW. And yes to a real plan for growth and new revenue so we don't rely on regular overrides to provide basic services. This has only been possible because of the commitment of so many residents and city leaders to work together for a simple and just cause. To make Medford, and even better place, a city that works for all of us. A city that leads with shared values, clear principles, and delivers real results for our residents. A city government committed to leading with compassion, hard work, and supporting those most in need, to listening to the unheard, not just the loudest voices, to making tough choices and telling people the hard truths, not the easy falsehoods we might want to believe. Voters have a clear choice this November. Do we vote to keep moving forward? My answer is yes, and I believe the people of the city of Medford will keep saying yes to moving forward too. It's been the honor of my life to serve my hometown, and if I earn your vote for my fourth term, I guarantee that I will keep fighting for a Medford where our city government lifts everyone up and solves big problems together. If you want compassionate, principled, and effective leadership to keep Medford moving forward, I ask for your vote on September 16th and November 4th. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: 14th regular meeting, Medford City Council, August 5th, 2025 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan is absent tonight.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears. Present. Six present, one absent. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records, records. The records of the meeting of July 15th were passed to Councilor Leming. Councilor Leming, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming to approve, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: One report. That's next on the agenda. Oh, that's the second. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: That's okay. On the motion of Council Leming to approve the record, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 6 in the affirmative, 1 absent. The motion passes. Reports of committees, 19-070 offered by President Bears. Committee with a whole report to follow. This was the report that we just received. It's on the tree committee ordinance meeting that we had on July 15. Is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Affirmative. One absent. The motion passes. 24-033 offered by Vice President Collins. Planning and Permitting Committee. July 16, 2025 report. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. President Bears. Yes. Five in the affirmative, one in the negative, one absent. The motion passes. Petitions, presentations, and similar papers. 25121, petition for a common evictiator's license, CB Scoops. next gen scoops, LLC, DBA, CB scoops for 53 high street, Medford, Steven catchola. Uh, present, uh, has presented a petition for a common victor's license for CB scoops. Councilor Scarpelli as subcommittee on licensing permitting and science chair, the floor is yours.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not seeing any hands on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: A motion to table by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. President Bears. Yes. 16 affirmative, 1 absent. The motion is tabled. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. It's the affirmative. One absent. The motion passes. Communications from city officers and employees. 25127 offered by Election Commission. Medford call for election September 2025. Be it ordered that the Elections Commission be and is hereby authorized and directed to notify and warn such inhabitants of the city of Benford as were qualified by law to vote for candidates at our municipal preliminary on Tuesday, September 16th, 2025, to assemble at the polling places and their respective wards and precincts, and then to give their votes for city council and the polls of said municipal preliminary shall be open at 7 a.m. and remain open until 8 p.m. Be it further ordered that the following name polling places and they, are hereby designated for use at the Municipal Preliminary on September 16, 2025. We'll recognize the Elections Commission and Elections Manager.
[Zac Bears]: Is there anything you'd like to add about early voting, mail voting?
[Zac Bears]: Great. And for mail voting?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And if people want to know their election day polling place, what's the best way to find that information?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we have any questions for... Do we have any questions for the elections manager or the members of the Elections Commission? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any further questions for the elections manager?
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead, Jim.
[Zac Bears]: Great. All right. Any further questions by members of the council? Seeing none, is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. 25128, the call, sorry, the warrant. This is, let me read it. Warrant for the Medford September 2025 municipal preliminary election to the residents of the city of Medford. Greetings in the name of the Commonwealth, You are hereby required to notify and warn the inhabitants of said city or town who are qualified to vote in elections to vote at the various wards and precincts on Tuesday, the 16th day of September, 2025, from 7am to 8pm for the following purpose to cast their votes in the municipal preliminary election for the candidates for the following offices, offices, council, As there on at the time and place of said voting given under our hands this day, fifth day of August 2025, the Medford City Council posted at each polling location the library and City Hall, no later than September 5 2025. Anything more to add on that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we just have to do two votes on two documents. Great. Is there a motion on the motion to approve by by Council is our second by second by Council let me Mr. please follow up.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. It's the affirmative. One absent. The motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. And good luck. Everybody vote on the 16th or early or by mail. 25125, offered by President Bears, MBTA bus stop improvements presentation. We have a presentation from the MBTA on a bus stop improvement. Do we have MBTA folks here on the call? The clerk will make you a co-host.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Could you make Katie and the co-host?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We can hear you and you should be able to start video and if you want to share your presentation.
[Zac Bears]: We can't see your screen. It's not in slideshow.
[Zac Bears]: We can see your screen.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Ben. Thank you, Katie. Appreciate this work. This is an important priority to improve bus connectivity and accessibility near the new Medford Tufts Greenline station. So I know a lot of residents have been talking about this and asking for it and our traffic direct and transportation director and our traffic team are consider this a priority and I'm glad that we can consider it tonight. I'm going to go to members of the council for questions. We go to Councilor Lazzaro, then Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, just to clarify, are there going to be any changes made to lighting or will there be sound installations that don't currently exist?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to table by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Hearing no second, are there any other motions or questions? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, one of the negative, one absent. The motion passes. Communications from the Mayor 25126 submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Sorry about that. One second. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body, in accordance with Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 138, Sections 4 and 5, approve the appointment of Mark Lally, 3 Smith Lane, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, to the Garden Commission for a term of three years to expire November 18th, 2028. Mark will be present via Zoom. Copies of their resume and appointment letters are attached. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. Do we have Mark on Zoom? Mark, could you raise your hand? Great. Mark, I'm going to let you turn on your video, and then we'll request you to unmute. You should be able to turn on your video now if you'd like to do that.
[Zac Bears]: That's okay. Thanks for being here. We've received your request for appointment by the mayor. Is there anything else you'd like to share about why you'd like to be on the garden commission or anything else you'd like the council to know?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thanks, Mark. Do we have any questions for members of the Council? Hearing and seeing none, is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Leming, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, none in the negative, one absent. Motion passes. Mark, invite me over for some of Medford's own sometime. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Reverting back to the regular order of business, motions, orders, and resolutions. 25103 offered by Vice President Collins proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance other quarters districts for referrals to the Community Development Board Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to table paper 250103 to the September 9th regular meeting by Vice President Collins seconded by seconded by Councilor Leming, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes and the measure is tabled. I'm going to turn the chair over to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins, and thank you for chairing the meeting. This is our second meeting where we have this formally on the agenda. It was tabled, well, it was delayed by a councilor delay on June 24th, and then further tabled on July 15th to have more time for discussions with city staff and incorporate some changes that I believe address some ability to implement and also make clear the intent of this ordinance. I spoke at length on June 24th about why I proposed this ordinance. We've heard from many residents about this ordinance and how they feel about it and their opinions on it. But at the end of the day, the purpose intent is written into the ordinance itself. It says the city of Manfred will strive to invest its funds in ways that promote the wellbeing of our communities and our environment, favoring investment of its funds and entities that support the needs of peacetime and daily life and meet the city's goals of conducting local government in a quote, accountable, transparent, innovative, stable, ethical, representative, and responsible way. And that's what this ordinance does, Madam Chair. We are in a unique moment in this world where we are seeing ecocide at incredible levels. Our planet is being destroyed by corporations who care more about next quarter's profit than the continued existence of our ecosystems and the ability of humans to stay alive on this planet. We are seeing a federal administration that is partnering with for profit private prisons and detention centers to lock people up, in many cases, extra legally, and then trade that on the open market for profit. We are seeing weapons manufacturers and right-wing extremists across the world fomenting violence and killing and destruction in countries on nearly every continent, again, for profit and for next quarter's earnings rather than the injuries and death that we're seeing to so many people, especially so many children. And we are seeing a federal administration and a global right-wing movement that is committing massive human rights violations across the world, in countries across the world. They are abetting each other, they are supporting each other. Homes destroyed, families completely wiped out, and it is essential that all of us, whether that's us as individuals, us as communities, us as organizations, or working together through local government, that we say that if we have funds, if we have these public funds, we are not going to invest them in this global effort that disregards and dehumanizes people in so many different ways, whether that's for political gain, or for private profit, or in many cases, both in the never ending cycle of destruction and violence. It's not a fun picture to paint, but it's the world that we're living in right now. And this ordinance says that in Medford, we're not going to put our public funds into that system. I have been grateful to meet with several residents, residents who have concerns, concerns about what the ordinance's intent is. I think there are some edits in here that better define what that is. I really appreciate meeting with the city administration, the treasurer collector, the chair of the commissioners of trust funds, especially also meeting with the retirement fund, even though retirement funds are excluded from this ordinance, they were able to do an analysis and provide a framework for how to look at funds and how they would apply under these conditions. And you can see that in the updated section 2698B. There's a very clear framework called the MSCI ESG, that's Environmental Social Governance, Controversies and Global Norms Methodology. That comes from the financial industry itself, which I know I and others have issues with, but it provides a clear framework for the implementation of this ordinance. They use data and create this methodology and framework to determine what companies are, for example, complicit in human rights violations. They take a number of global international law, international conventions and treaties to make those determinations. And they are a group that many folks who are thinking about how to invest their money look towards to make determinations about who is violating the basic norms and foundations of international law for profit. So I want to thank the folks from the Retirement Fund for pointing out this methodology. They did an analysis of their funds and most of these funds are for the Retirement Fund are not invested in any of these areas, not all. And I also just want to thank folks from the Retirement Fund as well for our meeting where they pointed out that while this ordinance wouldn't apply to them, there are a number of restrictions already in place in state law, particularly as relates to weapons manufacturers, where our retirement funds are not invested in that right now. And while this is what we can do here for the funds that law allows us to work with. I also am hopeful that the state will take some more action in the future to try to incorporate some of what we're doing here into the laws that apply to the retirement funds and other funds that are under control of the state. With that, I'm interested to hear from my fellow Councilors and I would move to approve for first reading.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Collins. I just want to address a few things. Councilor Rosario is right that this comes from community. One of the first things that I looked into and asked for with Councilor Morell five and a half years ago was what it would look like for our community. to divest from fossil fuels. And as we have seen efforts across the state, some more successful than others, certainly efforts nationally and internationally, I've heard from more residents about some of the egregious harms and industries that so many people are putting pressure on to change their behavior and to say that we're not going to be investing our public funds in. So I've talked to a lot of residents over a lot of years, heard from a lot of residents over many years about this. And when we saw the results of the last election, especially started to see within days, the stoking of hate, stoking of fear, stoking of violence, now being done in our name by our federal government, it became incredibly clear that we needed to fight back. And so that's why I've worked for the last eight months on this ordinance. I have had many discussions with Chief of Staff Nazarian, including last week, including this afternoon. Some things that are concerns in the email today were not concerns in the conversation on Friday. That's fine. But I share my colleague Councilor Scarpelli's frustration And, you know, I think something I've been trying to do lately is think about my approach. And, you know, I don't agree with everything Councilor Scarpelli says, but a lot of the things that were read in the email that he just read are questions that we had four months ago. They are issues that I have worked diligently in multiple meetings with multiple entities in the city to get to a clear definition to help them understand, you know, and quite frankly, many of the things in the email are maybe yes, maybe no, we don't know. And I understand that. I mean, they cite a mass general law that right in section 2699 says right here, subject to the provisions of general law, chapter 44, section 54 and 55 and the prudent investor act, right? That's because legal already reviewed it once and I incorporated their changes. We have an entire methodology in here that I discussed with the retirement system. I spoke with city staff for an hour. I spoke with folks for another hour last week. I've brought up on the phone, I've shared to make it very clear how to implement this. And to be honest, and I hope that people can feel some sort of clarity from this, from the analysis so far, it doesn't seem like much of our city funds are invested in any of these things. I think that's a good thing. And I think the reality that they should never be invested in the future is an important piece of this too. When we talk about how does it get implemented, and these are concerns, when I hear the same concerns for four months over four calls, over four months, over many calls, over multiple meetings, and they've remained maybe, maybe not concerns, and the answers aren't anywhere, and we never receive a document that actually says, here's the research we've done and here are the changes we want you to make. I think it's really hard to consider those concerns in any sort of real and substantive way. The way I left it with the chief of staff this afternoon was, this is a first reading, it'll be advertised, it'll come back for a third reading, send us a memo, With your legal suggestions, send us a memo with your policy suggestions, make sure they're two different memos because too often we get legal suggestions that are actually policy suggestions and we'll consider them. And I said this a month ago in the end of June. Part of moving forward is to set the clock running. If these are real concerns, and we need to do the review, then we need to do it in a timely way. And when the goalpost keeps getting moved. And the same concerns keep getting brought up, or we make some corrections and then they're not quite the right corrections and we need another one set of corrections. I think it's imperative that we advance the process forward so that the people who are raising those concerns give us them in a clear and coherent way that we can consider and then look at the ordinance language specifically. From my conversations, we addressed a lot of stuff here. The email can say what it wants. We're not talking about vendor contracts. We're talking about the investments of city funds in stocks and securities. That's what we're talking about. There's an entire methodology in here that makes it very plain and clear how to look at potential investments to address this. And for me, I think that the due diligence and the work done to this point is sufficient. So that's why I made my motion to approve for first reading. And I invite the administration to concretely frame its concerns with specific suggestions for ways that we could change language, if necessary, and consider this council could consider an advance of third reading. So I appreciate it. And yeah, I understand my fellow councillors concerns. It can be very difficult. The relationship between this council and the city administration has been difficult at many turns. I would say that I feel we've made a very coherent and honest effort to try to have a collaborative relationship. And it hasn't been easy. And it will continue, I expect to not be easy, but we'll continue to try. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. And thank you to everyone who spoke tonight, shared their views very clearly. There are lots of folks who have lots of feelings and opinions about this. Many folks feeling very personally impacted by this. I wanted to first just try to talk to some of the questions that came up. I think I tracked them relatively well. When we talk about some of the specific language around the percentage of funds for the sections A and B versus C and D, interestingly, I think a piece of that actually relates to some comments made earlier, noting that there are companies that may well have a hand in some of these industries, but it is not the main thrust of what they do. Should it just say 0% maybe? You know, that might be my opinion. That was coming out of the Boston ordinance. When we talk about the Trump administration and its attacks on cities, towns, universities, groups, religious organizations, individuals, just the brutal, bullying and assault on the basic rule of law and integrity of a free and civil society. Medford is already in its crosshairs, whether for an action that we've taken or just for the fact that we're five miles outside of Boston. And he doesn't really care that much about collateral damage, as we've learned. Is any community prepared? Is any university, is any institution prepared for the iron fist of the President of the United States to come down on them? If I was to say yes, I don't think anyone would believe me. I think we've seen the harm that has happened and all of what he's done. But what folks said earlier is right. When a bully and a tyrant comes after you, you don't give in. Everyone who has given in has lost more and lost ground and made the next attack more likely. I think we are in a strong position. I think we're surrounded by communities who are standing up for immigrant rights, standing up for gender identity and the rights of people who have transgender people and people in the LGBTQ community and standing up for racial diversity and standing up against the erasure of history and I think we will be in a chorus of voices that stands up against targeted assaults on communities because they say we don't want to put our money in fossil fuels or we don't want to put our money in human rights violators. The last thing I want to talk about goes back to the MSCI screen. Gaston brought it up. I don't think it's a perfect tool. I think there's a reason why there's many, many sections and where one may not capture a company, the other does, right? This is interlinked and intersectional. These areas are essentially the main challenges to our basic human dignity and rights across the world, whether those are perpetrated by companies who are mainly in fossil fuels or companies remaining in private prisons or companies remaining in weapons. Something that I want to note about the MSCI methodology that's in here, and I think it kind of goes to the larger context of what we're talking about throughout this conversation, right? A lot of people feel that this text of this ordinance does something specific that they want it to do. They may well be right, but the whole point of international law and international institutions and global norms is that they apply to all of us, to all human beings. And if you look at this methodology, right, it's in here in 32B, we're talking about things as basic as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. the International Labor Organization Convention on the Abolition of Forced Labor, the Convention Against Torture, the Convention from the Protection of All Persons Against Enforced Disappearance. Every single thing that folks brought up tonight falls in here in some way. And this methodology identifies 31 vulnerable demographics. of 31 national civilians and refugees, ethnic, racial, and religious groups located in or originated from countries with ongoing international armed conflicts or military offensives. It mentions civilians and refugees in Georgia and South Ossetia. It mentions civilians, refugees in Belarus. It mentions the Uyghurs in China. It mentions people in Crimea. It mentions indigenous people in Colombia, civilians in the Congo, the Donetsk and Luhansk in Ukraine. It mentions folks in Haiti and Honduras and Iran and Libya and Myanmar and the Philippines and South Sudan and Syria. And it mentions Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. And it mentions Israelis, mentions all of those groups. If there is a company that is spending its money to an investing and committing human rights violations against vulnerable demographics as identified by the international laws and norms that underlie the basic foundations of an international system and liberal order that tries to value and protect all human rights. It mentions all of those groups. So for the folks who say it targets one or the other or calls one group out, it's just not true. It's just not true. It's written in here. That's what this is about. This is about universal values. And universal values don't come without context. They don't come without the understanding of what's actually happening in the world. And a lot of people spoke very deeply and passionately tonight about the context that they feel is closest to them. There are facts. There are realities. There is a genocide going on in Gaza and in Sudan. And there is forced displacement in Ukraine. And there is forced labor and religious persecution in China. Those are things that are happening in this world. And this ordinance says we don't want to be a part of it. I'm going to finish just to say that I appreciate that we've had a difficult conversation. We've done it civilly. We've heard from a lot of people. We've done that a lot in this room. And I agree with the folks who say that it is not our responsibility to define divisiveness or quote unquote, not be divisive. To take a position like this is to simply say, we believe in a world order where human rights don't get violated, where our world is not burned, where the people where the human race has the ability to see a future that is more than 10 or 20 or 30 years out. And yes, maybe it's little old Medford making the argument, but hopefully more people will join us and a loud chorus will eventually drown out the people and organizations and wealthy elites, as David Harris said, who quite frankly are driving this world towards a global collapse. So I thank everyone who spoke. and I reiterate my motion to approve for first reading. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I hope that was written dryly enough to not come off as mean. This ordinance work that we've been doing on the zoning is essential to the future of our city where as written and as we've discussed extensively in this body for the six years that I've served on it, our zoning is broken. People don't like the outcomes of it. It both allows things we don't want and doesn't allow things we do want. And it significantly hampers our ability to grow and develop as a community. We spent years following the rescission of the mystic Avenue proposal in 2019, doing a planning process to develop the housing plan the climate plan and of course the city's comprehensive plan. we conducted a two year zoning recodification to create a modern ordinance structure that this council approved unanimously under the previous council. And for the last 18 months, we have been working under the contract and funding provided by the mayor to implement the city's plans through updates to the zoning ordinance as outlined in the comprehensive plans implementation table. I wrote and delivered a seven page comment letter on the draft comprehensive plan. So I can tell you that I have read through it intensely and I can tell you that there was a lot about needs for change in our zoning to address the many issues, whether that's affordable housing, nonconforming structures, zoning that doesn't allow for mixed use districts, that doesn't allow us to create vibrant corridors and commercial squares, all the things that so many folks have been talking about that hold back this community in so many ways. I think most eloquently and elegantly represented in the new bank that is opening in the outfitted, formerly outfitted restaurant in Medford Square, right? If we don't do something significant, that's going to keep happening. And this is what our comprehensive plan said, and this zoning has been working to change. The ordinance lays out very clearly what has happened over the last 18 months. I'm not going to get into the back and forth and the specifics. It's obvious that the mayor has a different narrative of what happened. I think that a lot more engagement and involvement and resources earlier on, I remember Council Vice President Collins, you send the communications last September trying to get the communication staff and team more involved in what we were doing would have helped. I do think that this, the zoning that we've proposed generally reflects both the comprehensive plan, the vision and the expert opinions of the planning team that we brought on board. And I do want to note that even in the absence of more resources and more direct engagement from the city administration, your efforts, Councilor Collins, did receive the praise and plaudits of the Mass Municipal Association, who highlighted our zoning website and communications plan this spring. But given that city government, even when we're talking about zoning, and even when we're talking about the city council, who does hold the primary responsibility for zoning, when other bodies of city government, the mayor, particularly, Um. Are calling for a different approach and a change in approach at this stage. I don't think that we can move ahead without listening to that, particularly given the mayor's letter last week, which indicated that she would not provide. Our body with consulting and resource I don't think that's particularly the best way to move forward because I don't think that ending the project at this stage was good for anyone. It leaves a lot of the broken zoning intact. Yes, there are great improvements with Green Score and the new Mystic Avenue corridor and Salem Street, like it's a start, but leaving it in this stage would be pretty awful and kind of a worst of both worlds situation. Saying all of that and having written this ordinance in response to my commitment from my address to the community earlier in July, I will say that I did meet with the mayor for nearly two hours yesterday. We, I think, disagree on how we got here, agree that if we knew now, like if a year ago we had known what we know now, we would have approached this differently. and agree that I think that there is a path ahead, basically along the framework that I outlined and also that the mayor had outlined. We kind of ended up in one of those situations, Newton and Leibniz, right? They both invented calculus at the same time. The mayor sent a letter and I made a speech about 24 hours apart that said largely the same thing, even though obviously there were significant disagreements in accountability and who's responsible for what happened. All of that being said, I think we had a good meeting yesterday. I feel confident that we can work through disagreements and differences that we may have, create an agreement and a framework to extend our contract with the INIS associates team and move ahead on this essential project. and move ahead also with the knowledge of how we want to do that collaboratively going forward. So I feel confident about that, but I also think it's essential that we transmit to the mayor a communication that outlines what has happened over the last 18 months and what needs to change in order for us to continue to be successful and complete this important project that is really the foundation of our growth and development and a better future for our city. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it's just fundamentally true that it's hard to act in good faith and easy to act in bad faith. And it's hard to say we've learned that we should have done it better and it's easy to say, I told you so, or I trusted you too much, right? There are things that are hard and there are things that are easy. It's hard to say yes, it's easy to say no. And the city has said no a lot. City government said no to, we're not gonna update the zoning for, 30 years. No, we're not going to update the linkage fees for 30 years. No, we're not going to fix the sewer infrastructure for 30 years. No, we're not going to fix Menford Square for 30 years. No, we're not going to fix Mystic Ave for 30 years. And no, we're not going to fund the schools. And no, we're not going to maintain our buildings. And no, we're not going to build housing. And here we are, we're in the product of a city of no. It's a city in crisis, a city with decades of deferred maintenance, a city with no real plan and executed plan for growth, a city with out of date and broken institutions and structures. And, you know, if the city hadn't said no for 20, 30 years that I grew up here, I probably wouldn't have run for office. I want to live in a city that says yes. City that doesn't defer and delay and deny the essential and fundamental reality that we have to do something or else everything falls apart. As I said, it's easy to act in bad faith and it's hard to act in good faith. And fundamentally, when we wanna talk about the lie that this council didn't adopt the Salem Street recommendations, we adopted all but one. I think there were 12 recommendations and this council adopted 11. So 11 twelfths means we're not listening. It's a lie. When we talk about the RFP had the community meetings when the council voted unanimously to accept a proposal that didn't have the community meetings because we only got two proposals because there wasn't enough money. Unanimously voted for that, it's a lie. And it's a lie for political gain and I get it, it's politics, fine. It's easy to act in bad faith and it's hard to act in good faith. We'll see where it goes. If the mayor wants to end the zoning project, that's her prerogative. I think we're gonna get to a good outcome. I don't think we're gonna relitigate what doesn't need to be relitigated. And I think we're gonna move forward, hopefully now, with the resources we all see we need. The resources that weren't in the proposal that was unanimously accepted by the council, even though they were in the RFP, right? An RFP is a request for proposal. We didn't vote on the RFP, we voted on the proposal, we got back. And that proposal didn't have everything we wanted and asked for, because everything we wanted and asked for wasn't possible with $150,000 over 18 months. At the time, we accepted the contract and did our best with what we had. Pretty early on, there were different approaches. Councilor Scarpelli had one, Councilor Collins had another, I had another, Councilor Leming had another to try to fill the gaps. I thought we did a very good job of that. And up until really the end of June, when the mayor inserted herself in I think a not productive way, scaring people about what was happening and not presenting factual information and communications going out that didn't get looked at by any experts who were involved in the process. And then people coming and saying, look at all the horrible things that are happening. And none of them are actually in the zoning. That's what happened. Again, it's politics, right? It's politics. People are gonna say what they wanna say. Change is hard. It's easier to act in bad faith than it's hard to act in good faith. I think we're gonna get to an agreement. As I said, the mayor and I fundamentally disagree on the narrative of how we got here. But again, the political arguments being presented that no one was listened to and nothing ever happened and we knew this from the beginning and you did it on purpose, they are lies. they are actively lies. And the hypocrisy is so deep that when we voted unanimously to accept the proposal that didn't have the meetings that Councilor Schapiro mentions, then why did we vote to accept that proposal in the first place? Why wasn't this concern raised from day one? If we have the precognition and the forethought and the vision to have known that we would be where we were now then, I wish someone had spoken up. I didn't know. Well, you didn't, you voted for it, George. So you did.
[Zac Bears]: So, you know, important things can't just be delayed because we don't have the resources. That's what this city has done forever. And it's led us to where we are, which is so much work that we have to do. A council that in one term is trying to do the work of 20 terms before that didn't get done. I think the residents can see what's happening. I think they're very smart. If you look at what residents are seeing and saying, even residents who are coordinating the slow down residential zoning signs, I've had meetings with some of the people coordinating that who say, actually, we mostly agree on most of this and the process wasn't good. And the communications from the city really freaked me out. And thank you for saying what you said, because it addresses some of my concerns. It's not a response to people saying, I'm not going to vote for you anymore. Don't vote for me. Take that clip, put it out, right? I hope someone does it. you know, that's great. If you don't agree with me, don't vote for me. But I think residents by and large, see that we are working in good faith to do very difficult things that the city does not done in decades. And, you know, there will always be criticism, it will never be done perfectly, we will never agree on the outcome 100% behind this rail or the public at large. But I think most people can see that it wasn't intentionally, we never did this to push through a thing that nobody wants, right? If that was true, the overrides would have failed. If that was true, this council would never been elected. If that was true, we wouldn't see the results that we're seeing, which is that by and large, the city wants to move forward. And I'm confident that we will be able to work together with the mayor on this piece of that project and move forward in a positive way. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and this is what I'm talking about, right? I don't know, right? The idea that the information doesn't exist or it's not being communicated, and that's why everyone's being confused, is that's the falsehood, right, underlying the whole thing, right? The information does exist. People are being lied to.
[Zac Bears]: Which changes?
[Zac Bears]: All right, and I'll read to you what was made right now, because there's facts in the world and they literally exist on paper, regardless of if everyone, you know, if people want to say they ignored all the changes, and that's a political argument, a false statement, a lie, right? I'll read it to you. It's in the records that we approved in this body the following meeting that the clerk wrote. President Bears has declared this portion of the hearing closed at 1049 PM. Councilor Leming moved to accept the recommendations of the Community Development Board, except for the recommendation to go to MX1 at the intersection of Salem Street and Park Street. A yes vote would keep MX2 at the intersection of Park and Salem. Councilor Tseng second. Approved on a roll call vote and six in favor, zero opposed. Councilor Leming and Councilor Scarpelli absent, sorry. Councilor Leming moved to adopt the remainder of the Community Development Board's recommendations and approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Councilor Callahan, second. Approved on a roll call vote of six in favor, zero opposed, and Councilor Scarpelli, absent. That's the records. That's the facts. That's what happened. It wasn't that everything was thrown out. It's not that the Community Development Board wasn't listened to. It's that God forbid this council, which is the final deciding authority on zoning, decided to adopt all but one of the recommendations. All but one, 11 out of 12, 95%, however you wanna phrase it, we listen to no one. They only listen to one group. They don't listen to everyone. They don't respect the process. 10 of the new candidates are gonna listen to everyone, but the seven, the other seven, they're not going to. I think anyone who's watching this can read exactly what's being said. If people aren't informed, or if people are repeating and regurgitating the idea that the CD board's recommendations for Salem Street didn't happen, it's in writing, or we could play the tape. As you always say, we could do it all. We did. We did listen to the community development board. They had a long list of recommendations. Councilor Leming said, I agree with all of them, but one, we should accept all of them, but one. And then the council voted to do that. Six in favor, one absent. No, there's no huge discrepancy.
[Zac Bears]: But I just want to be clear. My question was on the substance. What are we reopening? Are we reopening that one change? Or is the reopening because it's assumed that we didn't do any of the recommendations, right? And the mayor now putting that forward? That's the part I'm confused by. We accepted all but one of the changes. A false statement has been spread that none of the changes were accepted. I don't see a reason to reopen something that we actually already did. We listened to the Community Development Board. We agreed with everything they said except one thing.
[Zac Bears]: If the motion is that we request that the Office of Community Development state what was changed And what what recommendations of the community level board were adopted for Santa Street and which were not and put that out, I would second that it's in our records, but if they want to say it again, I mean that's fine but but my point being that this is, this is what's at issue here, like, I agree. This started to go off of the rails when communications started to go out that contained inaccurate information, particularly communications that came from the administration. Communications that didn't get reviewed by the council team leading the project, co-leading the project with the mayor's planning staff or with the zoning consultants. And that's because those decisions were political decisions. They were not decisions made in service of the project. They were decisions made in service of whatever fears or inaccurate information was driving the decision-making process. And like, this is the thing, right? Like, I think it's the reason that Kit got frustrated, Councilor Collins got frustrated, right? Up until May, we were not really aware that the mayor had issues with how the project was going, right? And I'm not gonna go inside the administration and say, who's doing a good job or not doing a good job. We were operating under the assumption that we were doing co-leading a project with the Planning Development Sustainability Office, which is part of the mayor's administration. I still to this day have not heard the mayor articulate a different vision for zoning than what has been put out or what is in the comprehensive plan. I still to this date haven't heard the mayor really take accountability and responsibility for the role in the process. It basically sounded to me like, and we heard it in what she said, she's like, my biggest weakness is I trust too much. That's basically the fundamental thing that's in the letter, right? And it's like, I trusted you guys to do the project, And so I wasn't really involved and then once I saw the results I got frustrated. And, you know, that's just not when kids saying for months we need more communications when kids literally writing the city website, which is the job of the communications team, like, and when that's what I'm saying like It was coming up in meetings very regularly that we wanna do more and we wanna be more engaged. And the person who holds the purse strings and the only person who can do an appropriation is the only person that can sign contracts. We're not getting the response from them. It's the strong mayor plan A system that we live in. And I just think it's a day late and a dollar short to be like, well, I trusted everybody and they let me down. We're doing our best with what you give us. So that's all I'm saying. If it's about getting the accurate information out, that's been my biggest issue for the last three months is that I think less than accurate to boldly and blatantly inaccurate information has gone out that has scared residents, that doesn't accurately reflect what the zoning proposals entail. So if we want to start with Salem Street and ask the Office of Community Development or Planning Development and Sustainability to issue a press release that says what was adopted and what wasn't from the Community Development Board, I'm in. So I'd be happy to include that as a B paper or an amendment, whatever.
[Zac Bears]: It's going to be a B paper.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And yeah, thank you, Danielle. I appreciate it. And I think like what you said, elucidates the point, right? Like we started the project with the resources we had to try to implement the full comprehensive plan. And, you know, we were like, here are the nine amendments and we're going to do these and knowing what we know now, we didn't expect some of these proposals to end up at two, three, four, five more public hearings than we had outlined in the timeline. Then they start to back up against each other. We started residential when we did, and maybe Danielle was right now looking at back in hindsight, but the flip side of that discussion internally was residential is going to be really big. We should start it early so we have more time. And I think we're now really getting into the nitty gritty of understanding how we got to where we're getting. And like I appreciate Danielle like I think the team, the team that's been working on this to bring things and try to get the scheduling of the planning and permitting committee and the Community Development Board and the council and all the public hearings across the nine proposed amendment categories, like we had honest disagreements internally. And, and, but honestly, We had some honest disagreements internally, we had a lot more general agreement. And we started to realize, especially we did the framework right, then we did Mystic and Greenscore, and then we did Salem. You can hear from what Danielle said and what I'm talking about, what Kit's been talking about in the mayor's letter, when it started to become clear that if the process was gonna go this direction, and then we can talk about the million different reasons why the process went that direction, and that's a more complicated conversation, how it got stretched out. We are where we are now, which is that we see how we got here, and more time makes sense because there were assumptions made at the beginning of the process that proved themselves to be untrue. And that's very different from, again, and I don't say this to bring up the point again, right? But like we acted in good faith to do a good thing. We found out that some of the assumptions we made weren't accurate. We tried to correct for them. And then the corrections weren't enough and we're correcting them for them more specifically because of the community development board's feedback that the public hearings are too much for them. That's the main thing driving the change. I think that's the main thing driving the change here. And then the mayor's role in that, she can choose to define it however she wants, but I've said my piece on that. That's just very different from the idea that we started it from the beginning, trying not to involve people because we wanted an outcome. That's all I'm saying.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. One of the recommendations of the Community Development Board was not to allow medical uses in the entire Salem Street corridor. And we accepted that. There's no medical uses allowed in the Salem Street corridor. Right, but it doesn't allow that was Right, it adopted a proposal so that you can't, it changed the medical use, like we did not adopt the medical piece of things. So you can't have the same proposal that went to the CD board last year. That wasn't even allowed. That's what I'm saying. I'm just saying we didn't reverse that recommendation. So anyone who's saying that we reversed that recommendation is not telling the truth.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not talking about the proposed clinic from last year. I'm saying that when it came to the zoning, one of the community development board's recommendations was to create only a neighborhood medical use that allowed very limited medical things to address potentially impactful medical uses like what you're talking about. People have said the council threw that away and took that away. We did not do that. That recommendation was adopted. So it just goes back to this larger point, right? People are, you know, incorrect information goes out there, it suits a narrative, it gets repeated, people believe it, and then it gets continued. It's a never ending cycle. It's not really worth our time at this point.
[Zac Bears]: I came in specifically to request that the Planning and Development and Sustainability Office issue a public statement about what CD board recommendations were accepted by the council, and they can refer to the March 11th council records, which I read earlier in this meeting.
[Zac Bears]: 25-124 offered by Councilor Callahan and Vice President Collins, Street Committee Ordinance. We did receive a communication from Kevin Foley, the city solicitor today, that he would like some time to review the removals section of this ordinance, removals of appointees. And Councilor Callahan's on here. We have a motion to table by Councilor Leming. Table to the next regular meeting by Councilor Leming, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: He's absent. OK. President Bears. Yes. 5-0-2. 5 in the affirmative, 2 absent, motion passes. Vice President Collins. On the motion to take paper 25118, amendments to the personnel ordinance, civil project manager. and approved for third reading in city council july 15th approved for first reading advertised july 24th member transcript and summerville journal in city council august 5th eligible for third reading on the motion of vice president con seconded by seconded by councilor lazaro mr clerk please call the roll hang on
[Zac Bears]: Yes, five in the affirmative, two absent, the motion, sorry, five in the affirmative, four in the affirmative, one in the negative, two absent, the motion passes. Is there a motion on the floor? On the motion adjourned by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Hi, Danielle. Zach Bears. I'm the city council president here in Medford. He, him pronouns. And the restaurant question I've answered many times. I usually talk about Colleen's, but lately, and I still love Colleen's, I've been getting the Catania sandwich at Deep Cuts.
[Zac Bears]: Planning and Permitting Committee of the City Council.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so we have been in Medford, you know, for the past several years going through some big conversations about the future of our city. what we want growth and development to look like, creating the city's first ever comprehensive plan, and, you know, for the past five years, and especially the last 18 months in this phase, working on a citywide rezoning effort, and been really excited to work on it. Last election, I talked about it a lot in my campaign. We've talked about it in probably over 40-45 council meetings this term, and one of the proposals for the residential districts here in the city, so a lot of our neighborhoods, that has been under discussion, especially over the last six months, and In May or so, the Community Development Board published some recommendations for changing the council's original proposal for the residential districts. And I think there was a lot of uproar and folks who felt that those recommended changes from the Community Development Board went further than they were comfortable with in terms of what could potentially be allowed in some of our neighborhoods. So we've seen really since May, A lot of discussion about that residential zoning proposal, not being something that residents some residents here want to see other residents are very supportive of it I think one of the reasons that the CD board made its recommendations is that there are a lot of residents talking about the need for more housing, because of the housing crisis that we're in. But I just felt that, especially over the last two months, the conversation that we were having was not as productive as it needs to be to get this work done well, and that there were a lot of folks who wanted the process to continue at the same pace it was continuing in, and I really respect that, but I think taking another five or six months and refocusing the conversation over the original proposal that the council put out was a better foundation for making sure that folks who had good faith questions and concerns and comments could be heard and that we had more time to get more resources from the mayor's office to help communicate this out a little bit better. So that's why I put it forward. I just felt that especially the community development board meeting in July that that that meeting just wasn't going to be, it was a reflection of a process that had become not productive towards achieving the goals that I think a lot of people in this community share about where we should go as a city in terms of development and growth.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, the first myth to bust is zoning can't make anyone do anything that they don't want to do with their property. So, you know, there will be single family homes here in Menford for forever, I would assume, as long as Menford exists. But, and, you know, there was not a proposal to end even the zoning to allow single family. So that's misinformation. And I think, you know, your point is really well taken. Zoning is complex. It is a law that affects a major part of development and growth, but it doesn't make the choices about how a community develops and grows by itself. individual people do that, what people want to do with the properties that they own, who they sell their properties to. We have a zoning code right now that doesn't hold developers to account nearly as much as it needs to. And, you know, I think just getting that point across is really important. There are certainly some folks in the city who don't support the comprehensive plan don't want to see change in our community. But I think the reality is changes happening no matter what. And we need to talk about and have a plan for and then implement that plan for. making sure that that change best fits what our goals are as a community. I think our comprehensive plan that was came out in 2023 that you know was, I was part of the steering committee but it, you know, as an effort of the mayor's office talks about how we need more growth for a lot of reasons. More affordable housing. more market rate housing to keep the pressure off of the existing housing that we have now, better mixed use corridors and squares, more walkable neighborhoods, a million things. And zoning is a piece of how we get to that future that we want to see. And I just have really felt that because zoning is complicated, it has been easy and too easy, especially because we haven't had the resources and collaboration on the city side to put out enough good communications with good information. It's been easy for people to kind of twist the zoning effort for their own political purposes. I don't think most people are doing that. Most people I've talked to. say this is complicated i want to understand it better or i generally support the vision of where we're going but i think there are some issues with the specifics a lot of people i've talked to have said um the city council proposal for residential zoning from march makes a lot more sense than the suggested recommended changes that came through the community development board in may so I think with a little more time and some more resources appropriated by the mayor's office, it will, and focusing the conversation around what the council actually proposed, not the kind of more density proposal from the community development board, doing all three of those things will really help us to have the conversation that we need to have as a community and get this done in a timely fashion. Because the other piece of this is that Medford in so many ways has not seen the action that it's needed to see over the last 30 and 40 years. Things have been allowed to stagnate and fall apart. And we don't want to be in a position where we need another override to prevent teacher layoffs. We want growth in a smart and significant way to let us also invest in our city services, our public schools, and make sure that the city can do what it needs to do to provide for its residents. So it's just so important that we get this done. And I felt it was essential that we don't allow the process to get in the way of the substance and let people, a small number of people who want to sabotage this, be able to say that the process wasn't good enough. That's what I'm hoping to see over the next year to 18 months is that we can complete and secure the progress of this project by updating our zoning ordinance and making sure that folks who have some concerns right now are able to voice those and we get a good product at the end of the process as well. Even if everyone's not going to agree, I think people most want to see that we've had voices heard that have good faith concerns.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. So the way zoning works under the state law is in cities, the city council has the authority to amend zoning. In towns, it's town meeting, but we're a city, so it's a city council. And communities have these groups called planning boards. In Medford, our planning board is called the Community Development Board. And any zoning change goes to them so that they can review it, compare it to the city's plans. For example, our comprehensive plan, our climate plan, our housing plan, and some of our different plans for different parts of the city. And they can make recommendations back to the city council and say, you know, we reviewed your proposal and we recommend that you change it in this way. And then the city council can review those recommendations and it can adopt them or adopt some of them. And then the zoning ordinance becomes law. Right now, this process this rezoning project, which is in its kind of third phase, or at least second phase with the council. There are a number of proposals around zoning so. Um, it's not just 1 proposal around rezoning of the whole city. There's a residential districts proposal for residential neighborhoods. There are proposals for Medford square West Medford square. Some of our main commercial corridors. We already approved the mystic Avenue corridor and the Salem street corridor. And then there are some other proposals as well around parking, transportation management. We approved a new green score to make all new developments a lot more environmentally friendly. There's a private tree zoning ordinance that we're looking at to try to protect trees on private property when someone comes in to redevelop a property or expand a home. So there's a lot of different proposals. The main thing that has been the subject of a lot of debate And misinformation over the last couple of months is the residential districts. So proposals for a lot of our neighborhoods. That are not on our main drags main streets and avenues and squares.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Yeah. I mean, you know, people have said they want to put six story apartment buildings in the middle of single family neighborhoods. And, you know, they want to allow, you know, completely destroy and single family housing forever. And, you know, just a lot of things that are just completely not true. The main thing about the residential proposal from the council Is increasing the allowable what I call increment incremental density. So, um, saying if there's places right now that allow a 2 family. Can we allow for three family as long as they meet all of the other requirements, parking requirements setbacks, open space, something we're implementing for the first time ever is actually open space requirements for a lot of the residential neighborhoods right now and people I'm sure have seen it. Someone can come in by a house cut down every tree pave the entire lot. That's something that would never be allowed again under the new zoning if it were to pass. So one of the main things about the new zoning is, yes, say, can we allow a little bit more housing in each of our neighborhoods? And in some places, it's a little more significant than others because of some unique characteristics. This plan really is tailored to our neighborhoods and our neighborhoods are different. uh it's tailored you know there's some more increase around the new green line stations a little bit more change around the west menford commuter rail station um so you know it's not it is neighborhood specific and addressing you know the different characteristics uh but this whole concept of kind of squares corridors and neighborhoods that came out of the comprehensive plan um there's a map in the 2023 medford comprehensive plan that talks about this and that was the basis of About six to nine months of studies and analysis that we did, the Innes Associates zoning consultants team and zoning lawyers, they did a bunch of analysis from January 2024 to about September of 2024 based on the comprehensive plan and the climate plan and the housing plan to come up with proposals. essentially two proposals, a residential framework and a commercial framework. So what do our mixed use corridors and squares look like? And then what do our more residential neighborhoods look like? And that was the starting point for the zoning amendments that we've been working on for for about a year, plus the studies from last January to June. And then, of course, the four years of other planning and zoning conversations we were having before that.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I think that's actually a really great example and the Fulton Heights is tough because of private ways and because of development on wetlands and because of the hills. So there's, you know, some concerns about doing quite as much there. I think we could do more, maybe a little bit than what was proposed, but some of the planners feel differently. But I think that's actually a really great example across the board of how zoning is broken right now. Right now, land is so valuable and the profit incentive is so strong that it makes sense for a developer to come in and whether it's subdivide a large lot and build two large single family homes or more, or even take down or renovate one single family home and make a 1,500-foot starter home into a 3,000-square-foot McMansion, right? Our zoning's incentivizing that right now. So we're getting really bad outcomes no matter what because of the profit incentive. And the idea of the zoning is to change those incentives, right? You know, the example you had in some parts of the city, it might be a little bit different right now in the Heights because of what I said, What we'd want to see is probably two somewhat more modest structures that maybe had two two two families, right? Because you could house more people. The units would be of a lower cost, right? If you, you know, if it was a two family and each unit was 750,000 versus a giant single family at 1.5 million, that's a lot more accessible. You know, it's not accessible for a lot of people, but it's a lot better than a million and a half dollar McMansion, right? So that's one of the big things the zoning is trying to say. Developers are already coming in, but our zoning is incentivizing some pretty bad outcomes. We also have a patchwork zoning where we want to hold, you know, we aren't holding developers to account right now, right? Like, this council is trying to update the development linkage fees for the first time in 35 years. to get developers to pay their fair share. We don't want this pave over thing. We need an open space minimum. We want to protect trees. And we want to say, if the land's already so valuable that the developers are going to do things and build new things anyway, how do we make those things as good as they can be for our community's goals? How can we say we'd rather have a two family or a three family with somewhat more affordable apartments or condos rather than a giant McMansion, right? It's not perfect. I have a lot of, you know, I don't think that the market is the only way or even entirely a way to solve the housing crisis, right? But right now, our city's land use and zoning policies are so out of whack that we're actually making things worse. So that's one of the big initiatives here. How do we get property owners, developers more accountable and have the growth that is going to happen no matter what be more targeted towards the goals that we want to see our community meet?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so there's a couple things there. One is a non-development, non-zoning related question at all, which is we have two elementary schools that are near capacity, one that's probably where it should be, and one that's under capacity. And the schools are working on a plan to address that. So there is space in our elementary schools right now. It's just not well distributed. And that needs to be fixed. That's not a zoning problem. This bigger question is around what does it mean if more people live here? And I think that's a real question. You know, one thing there's a lot of information on, Vice Chair of the School Committee Jenny Graham put out a good note on this around the Mass School Building Authority analysis for the new high school. You know, right now, because of demographics, we've seen declining enrollments here in Medford, you know, our high school was built in the 70s in the 60s for. 4,000 people. It has about 1,400 in it right now. So we've seen declining enrollments. One piece of that is demographic trends. Another piece of that is that all of the studies from the Metro Area Planning Council and other social science experts around housing, the Citizens Housing and Policy Alliance, they show that actually adding new housing alone doesn't mean more students in our schools. The thing that actually adds the most students in our schools is when we add more affordable housing because that's the biggest need. What we're seeing right now is, and it's one of the things that's driving this larger thing, declining household sizes. There's fewer people living in the same size structures. We used to have almost 70,000 people here in Medford. We're down to about 60 now. We actually had fewer houses at the time, and it's because there's a lot more one, two, three, four-person households, where in the past you used to have four, five, six, seven-person households. A lot of structures with four bedrooms and only two people living in them, right? Like these things have been really impactful. So building more affordable housing will have an impact. But the other thing is that there's going to be, as the new high school process moves forward, we were able to build in a little more assumption for some growth in there, and then also to move the entire pre-K system to the new high school, and that would free up space in our elementary schools as well. So realistically, you know, in the short term, the 5-, 10- to 15-year term, most of the data and studies that I've seen indicate that new residents and new housing is not going to be a driving factor in our school population. And, you know, if in 5, 10, and 15 years we're in a different position, then we have to start having a conversation about what it looks like to expand an elementary school or renovate one. And that's the conversations that cities and towns have all the time. This city, as is true of many of the things, made a very colossal mistake 25 years ago and sold off all of the old schools for a dime, not a dollar. And that was because we wanted to save some money back then, and it was penny wise and pound foolish. If the city still owned those properties today, we'd have a lot more ability to have conversations about a lot of things. about community centers, about youth centers, about after school, about expanding an elementary school, about pre-K programs, about recreation, about support for youth with disabilities. I mean, this is what we're trying to fix, right? We're trying to fix decades of neglect and missed opportunities and bad choices. That's going to continue to be the conversation we have as a city because it takes decades to correct the mistakes of decades past.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, absolutely.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just really want to reiterate the importance of why we're doing this. We need a Medford that is growing in a smart and significant way. we have proposals before us that they're not the end, they're not the final product, but they are a really good foundation for having these conversations. And I think over the next few months, we're going to see a lot of good conversations, some disagreements, but especially I think being able to reach each other across some differences that we may have and better understand what's being proposed, make some of the tweaks and changes based on some folks, you know, questions and some things that need to be considered. And we're going to come out of this with a strong zoning ordinance that will set Medford up for success for the next 15 to 20 years. And I'm really excited about that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Thanks, Danielle. And I mean, that's really why I gave the address that I gave. I think we've had a lot of good conversations and we need to, you know, I felt the need to step up and show some leadership because it's really important to get this done the right way.
[Zac Bears]: You can find it through Medford TV, Medford Community Media, and then also on my website, Zach Barris dot com.
[Zac Bears]: And if it's if folks prefer to read rather than to watch, I'd recommend going to ZachBears.com. The full remarks are there and and probably a shortcut link to a video too. So you don't have to watch the introduction to the meeting either.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Yn fy mhrofiad cyntaf fel ymgynghorfydd, i'r moment yma, fel President Cymru, mae fy mhrofiad ymgynghorfydd mewn ddemocratiaeth wedi bod yn sefydliad o'n gwasanaeth i'r gymuned hon. Mae'r mhrofiad hwnnw'n ymgynghorfydd mewn rhai sylwadau sylweddol. Yn gyntaf, mae'n rhaid i'r cyhoeddiadurau rydyn ni'n ymgynghorfydd fod yn ymgynghorfyddol ac mae ganddyn nhw ddysgu beth fyddan nhw'n ei wneud, ac yna gwneud beth ydyn nhw'n ei ddweud. y byddent yn wirioneddol am eu gwerthoedd a'u sefydliadau, ac yn gweithio'n anodd i'w gweithredu a chyflwyno canlyniadau ar gyfer y bywydau. Rwy'n credu mai dyna'r hyn rydw i wedi'i ddod i'r ystafell hwn ar bob cyfarfodydd, a'r hyn sydd wedi bod ymlaen ar bob penderfyniad rydw i wedi'i wneud, a'r un pwyllt rydw i wedi'i wneud. Yn ail, mae'n rhan bwysig i'n lywodraethau cyhoeddiadol ymgyrchu â'r wirioneddolion gwirioneddol, i gynllunio gwerthoedd a pholisiau a Yn ystod llawer o wythnosau yma yn yr ystafell hon, wythnosau gwahanol ac anodd, rydyn ni wedi gwneud hynny gyda'n gilydd. Pan rydyn ni'n gweithio mewn yr ystafellau hyn, rydyn ni'n ymrwymo i'r rhanbarth o gwneud penderfyniadau anodd i'n cymuned cymdeithasol a'n dyfodol cymdeithasol. Y trwyddiant, rhaid i ni gydnabod a'n ymddygiadu bod pob un ohonyn nhw'n anodd, ac bod pob un ohonyn nhw'n gwneud penderfyniadau, ac bod llawer o lywodraethau a chymunedau yn gallu gwneud cymde Dyma'r rheswm yma, rydw i'n gofyn am ffwrdd gysylltiadol ar gyfer ein cymdeithasol efforth sy'n cynyddu'r newidiadau i'n rhanbarthau cymdeithasol a rhanbarthau ysgrifennol, yn ogystal ag ymgysylltu cyhoeddus ac efallai'n fwy agwedd i'r proses ymgysylltu cyhoeddus ar gyfer y rhanbarthau ysgrifennol a'r awdurdodau ysgrifennol i'r ysgrifennol. Rydw i hefyd yn gofyn ar y Llywodraeth y Ddinas i roi mwy o adnoddau ar gyfer ymgysylltu. i'r cymuned er mwyn gwneud cyfleoedd gwych i ymgysylltu â'r bywydau, i ymateb i broblemau a gwestiynau o'r ddiddordeb dda, ac i wneud mwy o'r cyfle i ymwneud â'r bywydau i ddeall a phartrefu yn y proses arbennig hon. Wrth fy mod i'n ymdrechu â chyfrifiadwyr 400 Medford ym 2030, rydw i'n gofyn fy hun yn amlwg, beth y byddwn ni'n eisiau ei adeiladu i bywydau'r dyfodol i gyhoeddi ar ein chyfrifiadwyr 500? Yn ogystal â'r hyn sydd gennym ni i'r pwynt hwn, ac yn gysylltiadu'r hanes sydd ddim wedi cael ei gyhoeddi'n hynod, yn mynd yn ôl i ddeg oedran cyn i sefydliad Medford. Mae ein cymuned yn dod i'r pwynt anhygoel. Rydyn ni'n gwneud y gwaith o weithredu ein plan cyfrifiadwy cyntaf ar gyfer datblygiad a datblygiad, ac yn ymddiriedu'r dyddiadau o gyllideb a'r argyfwng cyfrifiadwyr sydd wedi'u gwneud ein sefydliadau a gwasanaethau y ddinas wedi'u gwneud yn dda. Rydyn ni'n ymwneud ag ymgyrraedd leol lle'r myfyrwyr sy'n grwpio yma ddim yn gallu mynd ymlaen, ac nid oes llawer o optiynau ar gyfer y myfyrwyr sydd eisiau mynd ymlaen yma. Rwy'n credu mewn dyfodol o Medford sy'n dweud iawn i'r adroddiad o leoliadau leol a'r costau o bywydau, a Medford sy'n dweud iawn i ddatblygiad newydd ddiddorol ac anhygoel sy'n ymwneud â mwy o ffyrddwyr, ymdrech, newydd busnesau, mwy o amgylchedd, newydd leoedd i'w ymgysylltu ac ychydig Mae Medfyrd yn dweud, ie, gallwn gyhoeddi mwy o wahanolwyr i byw yma gyda'n gysylltiad â ni, ac yn ymwneud â'r hawliau amgylcheddol a'r amgylcheddau agored, ac yn cefnogi ein busnesau a'n gwneud ein drwyryddau'n fwy sicr, ac yn wella ein ysgolion cyhoeddus a'n gwasanaethau y ddinas. Mae'r proses ymdrechion i weithredu planau ein ddinas yn un o'r gofynnau pwysig i adeiladu'r dyfodol gwych yr ydym eisiau ar gyfer ein ddinas. Dwi'n ddiolch iawn i weld yr ymgysylltiadau o'r bywydau dros y diwydiant diwethaf i ddarlunio'r adnoddau cynllunio y ddinas a'r proses o'i gynllunio. Rwy'n credu bod y pwysigrwydd o'r Cyngor y Ddinas a'n adnoddau cynllunio yn gysylltiedig gyda'r Cymdeithaswyr Ynys yw'n siŵr, sy'n ymgynghori gyda'r cynllun cyfathrebu rydyn ni'n ei wneud fel cymuned, ac mae'n sefydlu'r sefydliad i ddechrau Medfyrd mewn y dyfodol iawn. Yn ystod fy ngwyddoniaethau gyda'n gysylltiadau gyda bywydau, rwyf wedi bod yn dweud y bydd un o fy nghyhoeddiadau cyhoeddus yw gynhyrchu ein cyfrifoldeb ar-lein i helpu i ddatblygu mwy o ddewis, a chyfrifo'r datblygiadau cymdeithasol sy'n gweithredu ymdrechion ein byd, gyda llawer o gynhyrchu sydd wedi cael ei ddweud am dros fawr o amser. Mae'r Prif Weinidog a'r ysgolion y ddynol wedi'u hyrwyddo a'u rhannu ar yr un sylwad hwn, a'r cynllun. Mae'n gweithredu cyflawn ar hyn o bryd, ac er bynnag y gallwn ni ddiddordeb ar rhai sylwadau, rydyn ni'n gwybod bod angen i'w newid. Mae'r ysgolion wedi'u hyrwyddo, ac mae'r cynllun wedi'u hyrwyddo wedi dweud hyn am ddegedau, ond nid yw'r ysgolion wedi gweithredu ar hyn o bryd, oherwydd mae gwneud rhywbeth yn fwy anodd na ddweud rhywbeth. Mae'r cyngor y byd wedi gweithio'n anodd i wneud y byd a'r cynllunau ein byd yn wirioneddol dros y blynyddoedd diwethaf, gan ddechrau gyda gofynion i'r cyllideb am adnoddau ar-lein cyn i mi fod yn y cyngor hon. i'n cymdeithas o'n rhan gyntaf o'r prosiect hwn, o 2020 i 2022, trwy ddod yn ôl i'n argyfwng argyfwng, i'r prosesau cynllunio rhwng 2020 a 2024, i greu'r cynllun cymdeithasol, cymdeithas cymdeithasol a chymdeithas ymdrechol, sy'n cynnwys gynnydd o miloedd o bywydau a miloedd o diwydiant cyhoeddus a chynnydd. Yn ogystal â'r 18 mlynedd diwethaf, mae'r Deyrnas Gynllunol a Chynlluniaethau wedi gweithio gyda'r Cymdeithaswyr Innes i greu cynlluniau argyfwng sy'n cynn Yn ogystal â'r mwyaf o flynyddoedd, rydyn ni'n y rhan fwyaf o'r prosiect hon, ac mae'n rhaid i ni sicrhau'r cynyddiad rydyn ni'n gwybod ei fod ar gael yng Nghymru drwy gweld y gwaith hwn i'r cyflawni. Erbyn 24 Januari, mae'r Gweinidog, Llyfrgell Ddatblygu Cymdeithasol a staff y ddinas wedi gweithio gyda'r adnoddau sy'n cael eu cymryd gyda ni gan y Prif Weinidog, ac rydyn ni wedi ymweld â'r Prif Weinidog yn gysylltiedig mwy ymhellach yn y broses, Gweithio i sicrhau bod y wybodaeth agweddol yn cyrraedd y mwyaf o'r bywydau sy'n bosibl i'w gysylltu â nhw yn y prosiect ymdrechion yma. Yn ystod yr wythnosau diwethaf, rydw i wedi bod yn ddysgu. Yn ddysgu bod llawer o'r bywydau yn teimlo ein bod ni ddim wedi gwneud sut i eu cymryd mewn y broses. Yn ddysgu ein bod ni wedi creu cyfle i gallu cyfrifiad o wybodaeth sydd wedi'i wneud i'r cyfrifiad o'r gwybodaeth a'r gwybodaeth yn y cyfrifiad hwn. Mae'n ddysgu ein bod ni ddim wedi cael digon o aelodau er mwyn ceisio gwneud y wybodaeth ymwneud â hyn yn fwy gysylltiedig ac, yn fwy na unrhyw beth, mae'n ddysgu y bydd y bobl dda yn dod i'r bwrdd yn ddiogel iawn, sy'n cefnogi newid yn y cyfan, yn teimlo'n anhygoel gan y sgwrs a'r broses y byddwn ni'n arwain at. Mae'n bwysig i un ohonynt. Mae'n bwysig i dyfodol Medford Fel rydw i wedi dweud yn ogystal â'r swydd o lywodraethau cyhoeddiol, mae'n rhaid i ni ymgynghoru cyfathrebu'n amlwg ac i ddarparu canlyniadau sy'n tebygu'r llawer o gollau a gofynnau o'n gymuned a'n bywydau. Ac ie, mae cymdeithas cymdeithasol y byd yn cynnwys cyfathrebu'n amlwg yn amlwg. Mae'n wir y byddwn ni'n rhaid i ni adeiladu mwy o adeiladau, ac nid y byddwn ni'n mynd i ddatrys y cyfathrebu'n amlwg drwy adeilad newydd ac adeilad newydd unig. Mae'n wir y byddwn yn arwain llawer mwy o adnoddau cyllideb i gynllunio'r gwasanaeth gysylltiedig sy'n ychwanegu'r argyfwng a'r gwerthoedd y tu ôl, ac mae'n wir y byddwn yn rhaid i ni sicrhau bod ddatblygiadau cymunedol sylweddol yn darparu'n well i wella ein strydau, bywydau a gwasanaethau ddinas, ac mae'n wir y byddwn yn gofyn i'r Llywodraeth ddatblygu mwy o gynnyrchau lleol i gynllunio'r bywydau. Mae'n wir y byddwn yn rhaid i ni wella'n well ein cymdeithasau awguryddol a Mae'n wir y bydd y diwydiant ein ddinas wedi'i adeiladu gan ddifrifoedig cymunedau gwleidyddiannol, ac mae rhan o'n diwydiant yn cynnwys ymdrechion ar-lein ac ymdrechion ymdrechion ar-lein a gwleidyddiaethau eraill sydd wedi'u gwneud ymdrechion gwleidyddiannol ac ymdrechion ymdrechion ar-lein. Mae'n wir y byddwn yn rhaid i ni wneud cydweithiau'n fwy fawr i garu ein diwydiant a'r adeiladau hanesyddol, ac y byddwn yn rhaid i ni ddweud ymdrechion o'r dyfodol yn ffyrdd sy' Mae'n wir y byddwn yn rhaid i ni wneud Medfyrd yn fwy ymdrechol, ymgyrchol a gysylltiedig i'n awdurdodau a phobl gyda ddysgwylion, ac y byddwn yn rhaid i ni ymdrechu datblygiad a gwleidyddiaethau sy'n gwneud ymdrechion cyhoeddus ac ymdrechion mwy realistig ar gyfer y bywydau, ac y byddwn yn rhaid i ni wneud hynny mewn ffordd sy'n ymdrechu'r realiaeth y bydd cariau'n ymdrechu i fod yn y ffordd y bydd y mwyaf o bobl yn ymrwymo. Mae'n wir y byddwn ni'n un ddinas mewn region sy Yn ogystal ag y gallwn gynyddu ymdrechion sy'n gwneud i ni wneud ymdrechion ar-lein ac y model y gall cymunedau eraill dilyn i'n ymwneud â ni a'r problemau mwyaf hwnnw i gyd. Mae'r adroddiadau ar-lein wedi'u cynyddu drwy'r 18 mlynedd diwethaf yn gweithredu cyffredinol, sylweddol ac arwyddol i gydbwysleisio i gydbwysleisio i gydbwysleisio i gydbwysleisio i gydbwysleisio i gydbwysleisio i gydbwysleisio i gydbwysleisio i gydbwysleisio i gydbw Yn ogystal â hyn, rwy'n gobeithio y byddwn yn dod yn ôl i'r pryncip y byddwn yn gallu cyflawni dim ond y pethau gwych pan fydd ein hyrwyddoedd yn cyfathrebu am eu gwahaniaethau a'u dysgu arnyn nhw. Roedd yn gwahaniaeth y byddwn ddim yn siarad yn gyntaf, ac yn fwy ymlaen, i gael y Prif Weinidog yn cyfrannu mwy o arian a gysylltiadau i'r prosiect hwn. Byddwn ddim yn ddweud y byddai cyfrannu 18 mlynedd yn y rhan fwyaf y gallwn ei gael, ac y byddwn yn ceisio ceisio gwahaniaethau i'r dyfodolion a chyflwyno' Rwy'n ymdrechu nad oeddwn i'n rannu'r cyfrifiadau rydyn ni wedi'u defnyddio i gyflawni'r proses hon, ac i ddweud am mwy o bywydau. Rwy'n gobeithio y byddwn wedi'u gynhyrchu'r gwaith o'n cymdeithaswyr sydd wedi gwneud llawer i geisio gwella gysylltiadau'r cyfrifiadau ar gyfer y prosiect hwn, gyda gysylltiadau gysylltiedig ar gael, gan gofyn am mwy o amser, mwy o gysylltiadau a mwy o arian yn ymlaen. Dyma'r rheswm yma, rydw i'n gynllunio'r fath gysylltiedig yma i mewn, er mwyn i ni allu gwneud yr hyn rydyn ni'n ei sefydlu i'w wneud mwy na chwe mlynedd yn ôl, i ddefnyddio cynllunio argyfwng rydyn ni'n credu bydd yn seilio'r dyfodol o'n bywyd, rydyn ni eisiau i'r cyhoeddiadau'r dyfodol i gyhoeddi ar gyfer cyhoedd Medford yn 2130. Mae'r cynllunio'r argyfwng yn rhaid i'r cyhoeddiadau fod yn ymwneud â'r cyhoeddiadau, er mwyn i'r cyhoeddiadau ddeall yn Yn gyntaf, rwy'n gofyn i'n gweithwyr cymdeithasol, y Llyfrgell Ddatblygu Cymdeithasol a'n tîm cyrraedd arbenigol i gyhoeddi'r fframwaith gweithredol cyhoeddus a'n cymdeithas ar ein gwaith ar y districtau cyhoeddus sy'n ymwneud â'r rhan fwyaf ar gyfer Medfyrd y Cymdeithasol, Cymdeithas West Medfyrd y Cymdeithas, y gweithredoedd eraill a'r ardal sefydliadol Tufts ym mis hwn. Yn ail, rwy'n gofyn i'n cynghorwyr cymdeithasol a'r Llyfrgell Ddatblygu Cymdeithasol a'r Tîm Plannu i gynyddu'r proses ar gyfer ymchwilio'r argyfwngau bywydol, adnoddau, a chynnyddau i'r cymdeithasol ar gyfer cymdeithasol ym mis Mhrifysgol 2026. Rwy'n gofyn i'r Llywodraeth Ddatblygu Cymdeithasol ddatblygu ei broses i ddatblygu ar nifer o argymhellion ynghylch y ddarganfyddiadau bywydogol ym mis Agos, ac i'w cyhoeddiadau cyhoeddus ar eu cyhoeddiadau newydd, yn ogystal ag unrhyw adroddiadau parcio ym mis Septembre, Cymdeithas, ac Ysgolion, yn ogystal â'r argymhellion diwethaf i'r Cynulliad. Yn ogystal ag adroddiadau'r Llyfrgell Cymdeithasol o'r Llyfrgell Cymdeithasol, rydw i'n ymddangos y bydd y Llyfrgell yn defnyddio argyfwng ar gyfer cyhoeddiadau cyhoeddus ym mis Januari ac Februoedd y nesaf, cyn argyfwng unrhyw argyfwng argyfwng ar gyfer cyhoeddiadau cyhoeddus, nid yn ogystal ag ym mis Mawrth 2026, ac i gael amser argyfwng argyfwng ar gyfer cyhoeddiadau cymdeithasol ar gyfer cyhoeddiadau cyhoeddus ym mis Mawrth 2026, os yw'r Llyfrgell Cymdeithasol yn ei gof Y tro cyntaf, a'n hollbwysig, rydw i'n gofyn i'r Prif Weinidog alluogu'r gofynnau anoddau o'n ffynonellau ar gyfer y ddinas i roi ymdrechion cymdeithasol i'r Llywodraeth, y Llywodraeth cymdeithasol, y tîm cynllun a'r staff y ddinas, gyda'r cefnogaeth sydd angen ei wneud yn ystod y flwyddyn nesaf. Yn benodol, rydw i'n gofyn i'r Prif Weinidog roi papur ymdrechion cyn y Llywodraeth ym mis Cymdeithasol, sy'n cynnwys $150,000 o ffynonellau cymdeithas i ddatblygu ein rhwydwaith gyda'r tîm o Gymdeithaswyr Ieuenctid ym mis Decembro 2026. Yn ail, y papur sy'n darparu $50,000 o arian addas i'r cyfathrebu i'r bywydau sy'n cael eu hysbysu a'u cyhoeddi gan y cyfathrebu o bob rhan o'r dynol sy'n ymwneud â'r prosiect yma, y Gweinidog, y Cynulliad a'r Deyrnas Plannu, sy'n helpu i gynllunio'r bywydau ynghylch y cyfrifiadau a'r cyfleoedd y byddent yn cael i'w gwneud i'w golygu i'w ddweud ac i'w gysylltu â'r G Byddwn yn ymgynghori'r cyfrifiad hwn mewn cyfrifiad i'w lleihau ar y cyngherddau cyhoeddus ar gyfer y cyngherddau cyhoeddus ar gyfer y cyngherddau cyhoeddus ar gyfer y cyngherddau cyhoeddus ar gyfer y cyngherddau cyhoeddus ar gyfer y cyngherddau cyhoeddus ar gyfer y cyngherddau cyhoeddus ar gyfer y cyngherddau cyhoeddus ar gyfer y cyngherddau cyhoeddus ar gyfer y cyngherddau cyhoeddus ar gyfer y cyngherddau cyhoeddus ar gyfer y cyngherddau cyhoeddus ar gyfer y cyngherddau cyhoeddus ar gyfer y cyngherddau cyhoeddus ar gyfer y cyngherddau cyhoeddus ar dweud yn amlwg ein gwerthoedd a'n golygau, ac yn gweithio'n gysylltiedig i gyflawni pethau da gyda'i gilydd. Ar ddiwedd y proses hon, nid y byddem i gyd ymddangos ar y cyflawniad. Bydd y cyflawniad ar gyfer y gynllunio'n ddiweddar i ddatblygiad ddiddorol, penderfyniadau sy'n ychwanegu, gwirioneddau gwirioneddol, ac ymddygiad ac ymgyrchu. Rwy'n hyfforddi i leihau fy nghefnod yn y proses ddemocrataidd y mae nifer o bobl wedi ymddangos i'n sefydlu ar gyfer ni, ac mae'n rhaid i ni Rwy'n cael gobeithio fawr o dyfodol Medford, ac rwy'n cael fy nghymryd yn ymdrechol gan y cyfrifiad yr ydych chi wedi'i leihau i mi i helpu i ddylunio ein cymuned. Diolch.
[Zac Bears]: Rwy'n amlwg i ddweud hynny'n fawr iawn. Dydyn ni ddim yn gallu sefydlu gynllun pwysleisiol ar hyn o bryd. Rydyn ni wedi'i ysgrifennu petisiwn ysgrifennol gyda Somerville ers nifer o flynyddoedd er mwyn ceisio cael gynllun pwysleisiol ar gyfer Tufts. Dydyn ni ddim yn gallu ei wneud ar hyn o bryd. Rydyn ni eisiau un. Mae Tufts yn ei ymwneud ag e ac yn ei ymwneud ag y cyfrifiad. Mae wedi morio bob sesiwn, ac mae'r Prif Weinidog a'r Cynulliad wedi bod yn gweithio. Rwy'n credu ein bod ni Efallai y byddwn ni wedi cyflwyno un yn gyntaf y blynyddoedd hwn, byddai'n rhaid i mi fynd yn ôl i edrych ar y recordau, ond rydyn ni wedi'i wneud ychydig pethau trwy'r amser rydw i wedi bod yn y Cynulliad, ac maen nhw'n ymdrech i hynny. Felly dyna pam nad yw Somerville un hefyd. Rwy'n credu ei fod yn ddefnyddiol. Rwy'n credu ei fod yn model yr hoffwn ei ddefnyddio. Rwy'n credu y byddwn yn eisiau cynllun mewn sefydliad mewn sefydliad ar gyfer Ysgol Tufts, ond maen nhw wedi'i ymdrechu ar bob trwyddiant, ac wrth i ni'n ei ddod i mewn, mae Tufts wedi'i gysylltu â'u gynllunwyr i ddweud pam nad ydyn nhw'n eisiau, ond gan sut mwy o ddiogelwyr mae hynny a'r system cynllun Boston, rwy'n credu ei fod yn ddangos i ni ddod yn ddiweddaraf amdanyn nhw, ac rwy'n credu ei fod yn siarad hefyd gyda'r element mwyaf o'r proses hwn, lle mae yna'r pethau y gallwn ei wneud mewn arddangosfa, ac yna mae yna'r pethau y byddwn ni'n eisiau i'r Llywodraeth ein bod ni'n gallu eu gwneud o'r perspectif o'r byd ymlaen nad ydyn ni'n eu gallu ei wneud, ac rydych chi'n gwybod, dyna un o'r drwyddiadau cymhwysedig rydw i'n siarad amdanyn nhw ymlaen yn y diwrnod diwethaf. beth rydyn ni'n ei wneud nawr gyda'r pŵer rydyn ni'n ei wneud nawr, ac beth y mae'n rhaid i ni gael mwy o pŵer i'w wneud nad y bydd y Llywodraeth ddim yn gwneud hynny i ni. Felly, ie, mae'n rhywbeth rwy'n gwybod bod yr holl dyrwodolwyr yn ein ddi-dreftadaeth yn ymwneud â'r ddau byd bob mlynedd, ac rwy'n credu y byddwn ni'n ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r y
[Zac Bears]: Yn ogystal â'r ysgrifennwyr hwnnw. Yn ogystal â'r Rwy'n gobeithio'r ymchwil ynglyn â'r adroddiadau ym Mhrifysgol Somerville a'r rhai eraill y districtau. Rwy'n gwybod bod gynllun arweinwyr sefydliadol yn beth anodd nad yw'n ein ffordd arbennig i'w wneud hynny, ond rwy'n meddwl y gallai'n gallu bod yn rhywbeth rydyn ni'n dod i'r bwrdd dros amser, os bydd y Llywodraeth yn gwneud hynny i ni. Rwy'n gobeithio, ar gyfer yr holl ymchwil, pa syniadau oeddech chi ar at least a fframework for what this zone could look like, and kind of the direction that your analysis suggests would allow us to meet the requirements of the law and try to hold Tufts accountable in a more robust way.
[Zac Bears]: Yn siŵr, ac rydw i'n mynd i'w rhoi'n fawr iawn i'r ffordd y gallaf ar-lein. Mae'n sŵn llawn.
[Zac Bears]: Sŵn llawn. Sŵn llawn o adroddiadau, ond no, yr hyn rydw i'n ei ddweud oedd ein bod ni'n rhaid i ni streamlineio'r proses, felly dylai yna fod, rydyn ni wedi siarad am y fframwaith cyffredinol, felly mae'n rhaid i ni ddweud am y fframwaith cyffredinol, felly mae'n rhaid i ni ddweud am y fframwaith cyffredinol, felly mae'n rha Mae ddau pethau rydyn ni'n siarad amdanyn nhw, mae'r fframwaith commercial, felly y sgwrs, y corrddoriau a'r toffau, y cyhoeddiadol a'r adnoddau a'r parcio. Bydd pob cyfarfod ar un o'r ddau pethau. Nid y dylen ni gael nhw'n cysylltiedig â'n gilydd, ac byddai'n rhaid i ni ddatrys ar y bwrdd commercial o bethau ym mis hwn. Matt, a allwch chi ddewis y mic cyhoeddus am ddau sefyllfa? rydyn ni'n cael cyfeiriad, ac mae'r meicrofôn yno y tu allan o'r sgrinwyr, sy'n ymdrechu cyfeiriadau. Felly, byddwn i'n gweithio ar y pethau cyffredinol ym mhryd y blynyddoedd, ac byddwn i'n cymryd dysgu'r cyfrifiadau ym mhryd y blynyddoedd nesaf, gyda chyfeiriadau i gyd yn y Llywodraeth y byd, felly. Yn siŵr, gallai fod yn Llywodraeth wahanol. Efallai y byddent yn penderfynu ymdrechion gwahanol, ond dyna'r hyn rydw i'n argymhellu i i'r bobl i gyd, i gael mwy o drafodaeth. Hefyd, rwy'n gofyn i'r Prif Weinidog ddarparu mwy o ffynediadau a gweinidogau er mwyn ymddiriedu mwy o bethau i'r bywydau a gwneud eu gwybod pan mae pethau'n digwydd. Felly, rwy'n credu bod, os ydyn ni'n ei wneud hynny, bydd y bywydau'n gwybod'n well yr hyn rydyn ni'n ei wneud, bydd ganddyn nhw mwy o amser i ymgysylltu, ac rydyn ni'n gallu gwneud yn siŵr efallai y byddwn ni'n gallu cael gwybodaeth i'r bobl y gallan nhw ddeall
[Zac Bears]: Wel, rydyn ni'n ceisio. Un o'r rhesymau rydw i wedi gofyn am mwy o ffunding yw bod, os byddwn ni'n mynd i wneud mwy o waith, rydyn ni'n rhaid i ni roi mwy o aelodau er mwyn i ni gael y bobl i wneud y gwaith hwnnw. Mae'n bwysig.
[Zac Bears]: She's currently the only candidate who's pulled papers.
[Zac Bears]: City Council is 50.
[Zac Bears]: End of July? I don't have the exact date in front of me.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee of the whole July 15 2025 is called to order Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Present, six present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. There'll be a meeting of the Medford City Council, Committee of the Whole at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber. Second floor, Medford City Hall 85, George B. Hassett Drive, Medford M.A., and via Zoom. Action and discussion items, 19-070, offered by Vice President Collins and Councilor Callahan, Tree Committee Ordinance. We have a copy of the Tree Committee Ordinance before us tonight that has been reviewed by city staff and councilors and residents. involved in Trees Medford for our discussion and I will recognize Councilor Callaghan. Should be good.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do you want to review the ordinance?
[Zac Bears]: Council have any questions on the duties of the tree committee? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any other questions from members of the council on the duties of the tree committee? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Any further questions on the duties of the tree committee before we continue with the rest of the ordinance? Seeing none, Councilor Lohan. Oh, sorry. Councilor Leming got in under the wire. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Councilwoman, could you share your screen? do we work from the version that's in the agenda?
[Zac Bears]: If Councilor Leming shared the copy that's in the agenda, would that be sufficient for us to look at, see on the screen? I'm sorry. If Councilor Leming shared the copy that's in the agenda, would we be able to?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: And Councilor Lamee. Councilor Callahan. Councilor Callahan. I don't know what's going on here today. Here, try it now. Nothing. Take Justin's for a second. There's something up with the mics. This is so strange. Blinking green.
[Zac Bears]: What would your motion be?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Council Member, if you could stop sharing screen. We have members of the public would like to comment on this draft ordinance either in person or on zoom income to the podium or raise your hand on zoom, we'll go to the podium, and then we'll go to zoom. Name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: I am not sure. Sorry, it's just one second. Councilor Callahan, we invited the DPW Commissioner. Do you know, I'm not seeing him on zoom do you know if he's going to join us at some point tonight or did he communicate with you. Okay. All right, go back to Tom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Sarah on Zoom. Sarah, name and address for the record, please. Oh, you're going to need to unmute, Sarah. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Sarah. We have Jeremy, Jeremy Martin. I'm gonna ask you to unmute, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to comment at this time before I turn it back to Councilor Callahan? seeing no hands on zoom and no one in the chamber. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Could you email the amended language to me and the clerk, please? Do you have any further amendments?
[Zac Bears]: We have a motion to amend by Councilor Callahan to adjust the appointment section in the following ways to require Medford residency except for the possibility of two youth members and to appoint one third of initial members for three years, one third for two years and one third for one year. Do you have discussion on the motion? And is there a second on the motion? Is there a second? Councilor Leming seconds and has discussion. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: either Councilor Callahan or Councilor Leming, I think it'd be helpful if we could read an amended version of section A. 2A, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Did you just read the full?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming?
[Zac Bears]: So section 2A would read, the committee shall consist of between 5 and 10 Medford residents, one appointment made by City Council and all additional appointments made by the Mayor subject to confirmation by the Medford City Council. If possible, two youth members shall be between the ages of 15 and 22 at the time of their appointment. Residency is not required for youth members as long as they are enrolled at an educational institution based in Medford. Section C would be updated to, 2C would read, upon formation of the member tree committee, one third of members shall be appointed for a term of three years, one third of members shall be appointed for a term of two years, and one third of the members shall be appointed for a term of one year, and then would add a section 2D that reads, tree committee members may be removed only for cause by a two-thirds vote of the committee, including for unexcused absences that exceed 25% of the number of meetings of the committee held within a 12-month period. And that's a motion to amend by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Leming. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? By members of the Council? Seeing none, is there any further discussion by members of the public on the amendment or the ordinance proposal? Seeing no one in the chamber and no hands on zoom. We'll take a vote on the amendment, Mr. Clerk when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes and the amendment is the ordinance draft as amended. Councilor Callahan?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve the amended ordinance draft and refer to the City Council's regular meeting by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes. Any further motion? On the motion adjourned by Councilor Callahan, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. So the affirmative, then the negative, the motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. We'll reconvene at 7pm for our regular meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council 13th regular meeting July 15 2025 is called to order Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Seven present, none absent, please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records, 25119 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that we offer our deepest and sincerest condolences to the family of Brian Deeb Hilliard, a fixture in our community for almost 30 years. Brian was a uniquely talented trumpet player who turned his musical skills into a successful music booking agency, occasional brass and strings. We offer our sympathies to Brian's wife, Stacey, his children, Duncan and Owen, his extended family, and his many friends. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarapelli. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. It looks like we do have one comment from a member of the public. I recognize Bill Giglio, you have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Hey, could we have your name and address for the record please?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no further comments either in person or on Zoom on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Callahan. We'll call the roll and then we'll take a moment of silence. Please call the roll, Mr. Clerk.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative and none in the negative, the motion passes. Please rise if you're able for a moment of silence. Paper 25112 offered by Councilor Scarpelli, be it so resolved that the Medford City Council recognize the Tufts University Government and Community Relations Team comprised of Medford's own Rocco DiRico, Liza Perry, Leah Boudreau, Maggie Carroll, and Aaron Braddock for being honored with receipt of the Tufts University Distinction Award recognizing their exceptional accomplishments. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further discussion by members of the council on the motion? Is there a second? On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative and then a negative, the motion passes. Records, the records of the meeting of June 24th, 2025 were passed to Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes and the records are approved. Reports of committees 25109 offered by Council President Bears, Committee of the Whole, June 24th, 2025, report to follow. On June 24th, we held a committee of the whole meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss proposed litigation settlements and potentially enter executive session to discuss those settlements. We did read the mayor's request to enter executive session to consider the matter of Aleesha Nunley Benjamin versus the city of Medford. We reconvene in open session and adjourned. Is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Callahan, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. I'll get to it, I already called the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, having the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to paper table, papers 25103, that is proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance, other quarters districts for referral to the community development board. 25105, that's the local investments ordinance proposal. And to take paper 25118 out of order, that's the amendment to the personnel ordinance civil project manager. Is there a second on the motion? Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we have public participation. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motions by Councilor Collins, seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative one in the negative. The motion passes papers 25 one Oh three and 25 one Oh five are tabled to the next regular meeting paper two five one one eight dear President Bears and city councilors I respectfully request and recommend that the city council approved the following amendment to the revised ordinances chapter 66 entitled personnel article to entitled reserve the city's classification and compensation plan formerly included as article to section 66 dash three one to 66 dash four zero. by adopting the following change. Amendment A, the language of Non-Union Public Works, NPW, shall be amended to include the following position. Civil Project Manager, respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. Looks like we have the City Engineer. Do we have the Chief of Staff? I don't see the Chief of Staff, so you're on, Owen.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have questions for the city engineer from members of the council? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have any other questions for the city engineer from members of the council? Seeing none. Is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Leming, seconded by.
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Yes, for first reading. When you're ready, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, I'm in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes and the ordinance is moved for first reading. Hearings, public hearing, proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance, chapter 94, Medford Square and West Medford Square districts to be continued to a date certain. Whereas we haven't received any recommendations from the Community Development Board on these proposed ordinances, we need to continue the hearing to a date certain. So I'm going to open the hearing and then we can hear a motion. The hearing is open. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to continue the public hearing to the September 9th regular meeting, seconded by seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, so many affirmative, none the negative. The public hearing is continued to September 9 2025 petitions presentations and similar papers to 5120 petition for a class to auto license obese auto service and collision LLC. Dear Clark Herbies, in close for filing, please find petitioner's application for a new class two auto dealer used car license, used car sales license, including the application in the city council. Notice of petition to the building commissioner, notice of petition to the fire chief, affidavit as to tax filings, DOR letter of compliance, workers' compensation insurance, affidavit, business certificate, evidence of surety bond. signed Kathleen Desmond representing OBE's Auto Service Inclusion LLC. I will recognize Councilor Scarpelli, Chair of the Subcommittee on Licensing, Permitting, and Science.
[Zac Bears]: If the petitioner could provide a brief synopsis of the proposal. One second, Kathy. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have any other questions from members of the council? No. Seeing none, we have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli to approve with a 30, 60, and 90 day review, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Seeing no further discussion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll to approve as amended.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative and then the negative, the motion passes. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli to suspend the rules to take public participation. Seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, 60 affirmative one of the negative the motion passes public participation. Greg Collins, July 10 2025 to the Honorable City Council, the undersigned respectfully request for tree removal. I am a homeowner in Medford since 2016. I'm currently in the process of building a new home on Walcott Street. Unfortunately, I need to remove a tree located on a public sidewalk in order to have a functioning driveway. I follow the protocols with the tree warden DPW, and they have ignored my rightful due process to have a public hearing in order to remove the tree petitioner's name Greg Collins residents 41 Fulton Street 77 Walcott Street, Greg. You have the floor, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll recognize Councilor Scarpelli. And then I did receive an email from the DPW commissioner on this matter that I can read.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So thanks for being here tonight. Appreciate your petition. As you probably know, considering you've been going through this for a few months, the public shade tree and the public hearings are governed by mass general law. And the council doesn't have a role in them. But of course, you know, we do hear from folks in this space about many things that are going on in the city. I'm going to read this response. It is not My, uh, it's not coming from me. It's coming from the DPW commissioner. He wrote me after the agenda went out. Good morning, President Bears. I wanted to bring to your attention information regarding the issue with Mr. Greg Collins and the public tree that is on your agenda for next week. Mr. Collins has not granted a permit from the tree warden to remove a public shade tree. He would like a hearing. However, hearings are required when a permit is issued to remove or take down a public shade tree. Despite his claims, the tree warden has been responsive to him. It is also worth noting that the building project began prior to the proponent receiving plan approval at the engineering division for elements such as the ROW curb cut. Unfortunately, the desired driveway for the project would eliminate a tree. The proponent asked to remove the tree, and the tree warden said no, denying the permission. Typically, site plans are approved at the engineering division prior to building, and especially if there are new curb cut locations. Mr. Collins is now represented by an attorney, and the communication has moved from the DPW to the city solicitor. I hope this helps. Regards, Tim. I can recognize Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I appreciate your time coming down and Councilor Scarpelli as well for your offer. Continuing in public participation. If you'd like to speak in public participation, you'll have three minutes. You can raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium in person. We will alternate between the podium and Zoom. Hi there. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anything else you'd like to add with your additional time?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Thank you for speaking. Is there any councilors who'd like to say anything at this time? Go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, yeah, and I will communicate to the superintendent that we heard from you tonight and ask for a response.
[Zac Bears]: We're still in public participation. If you'd like to speak in public participation, you can come to the podium or make a line behind the podium and raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing no hands on Zoom, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, so there are three active zoning amendment proposals currently under consideration. One is the residential districts and ADUs. That was referred to the Community Development Board in, I want to say March, and they've had several public hearings on it. Their last public hearing was last week, and they're having another one in early August. for the residential and ADU proposals. And I believe the comment deadline for the written comment is July 23rd. That's the deadline that they have set for written comments. And I believe they have said that on August 5th, they will be deliberating, but they won't be hearing public comment. And they will be directing the planning consultant to draft a new set of recommendations. Once that's done, they're going to hold further public hearings in September and October before referring recommendations back to the Council. That's on the residential and the accessory dwelling units proposal. The proposal that was on our agenda tonight that was delayed till September is a public hearing on Medford Square and West Medford Square zoning. the CD board had a meeting on that proposal, I think the last week of June and maybe discussed it further last week and they have to continue to hold public hearings before making recommendations to the council. We can't take action until we receive recommendations from the community development board or the community development board chooses not to make a recommendation. So that's why we had to delay the public hearing. We don't have recommendations, so we can't take action. The third proposal is the proposal for what's called other corridors that consists of Broadway, Boston Avenue, High Street, Harvard Street, and Main Street, various kind of mixed-use lots on those streets. And the CD board has requested that we hold off on referring that to them until at least our August 5th meeting, so that was tabled.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I see a Maria on zoom Maria I'll go to you name and address for the record and you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: The investments ordinance is tabled to the next regular meeting on August 5th.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no hands on zoom will stay at the podium name and address for the record please give three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. I'm going to go to Zoom. We have Micah Kesselman on Zoom. Micah, name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes. Yeah. Can you hear me?
[Zac Bears]: That's it. Thank you for your comment. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Thought I saw a hand on Zoom, but it's gone down, so I'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We will go to Zachary Chertok on Zoom. Zachary, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to the podium, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. I'm gonna go to Maria on Zoom, and then I'll come back to the podium, and then we can go to people who've already spoken once. Maria, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Maria, I'm asking you to unmute. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your time and your comment. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We have David Lifter. David, name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We'll go to Zoom. I see PBB on Zoom. I'll unmute you and you'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please. Oh, we can't hear you. Let me request an unmute again.
[Zac Bears]: There you go. Name and address the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll return to the podium, but I want to get folks who haven't had a chance to speak yet, Sharon. So I'm going to go, sorry, did you speak during public participation? on the zoning? No, you didn't Melanie. So we'll take you first. Thank you. Yeah, no, I know you hadn't spoken yet. Give me one second to reset the timer. And then for anyone who's already had a chance to speak, we'll come back around to you for one more minute if you'd like. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: All right, seeing no new hands on Zoom, we'll stay at the podium for folks who haven't had a chance to speak yet. Name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks Judy, just if I could for one second. I've been trying to meet with you through the administration for several months, and I didn't get connected.
[Zac Bears]: I spoke with Judy today, Judy Johnston, and we're going to set up a meeting with you to talk about something.
[Zac Bears]: Is there anyone who hasn't had a chance to speak yet who would like to speak in public participation? going to go to Zoom and then I'll come back to the podium. You've raised your hands at the same well, period at the same time. Going to go to Meryl Pearlson, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. I'm going to go back to the podium for anyone who hasn't had a chance to speak yet. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We're gonna go back to Zoom. We have been near Germanus. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone who hasn't had a chance to speak yet who would like to speak either in person or on Zoom? I see Mr. Castagnetti. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes, and then we'll go back to... One second, Andy. I gotta turn on your microphone.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. I'm going to go to Eileen Lerner on Zoom. Eileen, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone who has not spoken yet in the chamber who would like to speak? Seeing none, I'm going to go to Josh Eckart Lee on Zoom. Josh, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comments. I'm going to stay on Zoom unless there's anyone who hasn't spoken yet who'd like to speak in person. Seeing none, I'm going to go to Dina on Zoom. Dina, name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone in person who'd like to speak for a second time for a minute? And I see two hands of people who've already spoken as well. So we'll go to the podium. You'll have one more minute. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you for your comment. I'm going to go back to Zoom, then I'll come back to the podium. I'm going to go to Micah on Zoom. Micah, you'll have one minute. One second, I just have to reset the timer. Requesting you to unmute, name and address for the record. You'll have one minute.
[Zac Bears]: going to go back to the podium and name and address for the record. You'll have one minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. You haven't spoken yet, so you will have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone in the chamber who would like to speak on public participation who hasn't spoken yet?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone else who has not spoken yet who would like to speak? Seeing none, I'm going to go back to Zoom to Maria. Maria, you'll have one minute. I'm going to request you unmute. Name and address for the record, please. Maria, are you there?
[Zac Bears]: After everyone's had a chance to speak.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Going to go to Munir Germanis. For one minute, Muneer, name and address for the record, and I'm asking you to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you for your comment. I'm going to go to Eileen Lerner. Name and address for the record, please. You have one minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. RM, I'm gonna need to ask you to either message me on the chat with your name or change your initials to a name on Zoom. We've had Zoom bombing incidents and I'm not gonna unmute anyone unless they share their name on Zoom. All right, thank you. Thank you for doing that. I'm gonna go to Patricia Brady-Doherty for one minute. Patricia, name and address for the record. You have one minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Rich, I'm gonna come to you. Name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. going to go to Anna on Zoom. Anna, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone either in person or on Zoom who has or has not spoken who would like to speak? Yes, you have one minute. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Seeing no further, would you like to speak, Andy? Yes. You have one minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thanks, everyone. I appreciate the comments that we heard tonight. I have had a number of conversations over the last couple of weeks with people who have questions and concerns about the ordinance. I'm still working to reach out to everybody who has emailed me or otherwise tried to contact me about it. The reason there are no edits in the version that was on the agenda tonight is that I did not have control over the process. This was tabled from last meeting, using a council procedural rule that required it to come up again at this meeting, I am planning to propose amendments to the ordinance and I am planning to communicate with many of the people who have spoken tonight about the content of the ordinance, I don't think that we will all completely agree on everything that ever happens in this chamber, but I am working to have conversations to address the concerns that have been raised tonight, concerns that have been raised to me outside of this meeting, so that we can create a product that reflects what I think are shared values in this community, and also respects and listens to, I think, the very real fears that people have shared with me in person, in this meeting, and in other places. I would ask folks to look at what I said at our last meeting. I gave two what I think We're very honest and direct remarks about why I propose this ordinance and my feelings about the comments that were shared at the last meeting. And I do want to apologize to folks that we haven't had the chance to meet or talk yet or that the edits weren't made yet, but there will be changes. And we're going to work through this to create a product that, and an ordinance that addresses as many concerns as we can. So I just wanted to say that, but I wanted to give everyone a chance to speak before I did. I'm going to recognize Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you on the motion of the vice president to revert to the regular order of business seconded by seconded by Councilor Leming, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, 70 affirmative, none of the negative the motion passes and we revert to the regular order of business to 5113 offered by Councilor Scarpelli resolve the city council get an update from the health department for rodent issues in the Wellington Glenwood neighborhoods, Middlesex Avenue area Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Scarpelli, is that a motion to refer this paper to Committee of the Whole and invite the Health Department and Pest Control and the administration? Mr. Clerk, when you have the motion, please let me know. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to refer the paper to the Committee of the Whole, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, sorry. Councilor Lazzaro, before we call the roll. Councilor Lazzaro?
[Zac Bears]: The councilor just has a question through the chair to Councilor Scarpelli about your conversations with the health department. Sorry, I got to turn on your microphone. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Paper 25114 offered by Councilor Callahan and President Bears whereas as part of its 2024 2025 governing agenda and previous resolutions the council has stated its intention to implement the good landlord tax credit in order to help keep rents affordable and support landlords who offer below market rental rates and whereas the state law enabling the good landlord tax credit s 1795 specifically limits the quote qualified residential rental property to any unsubsidized two to four unit residential rental property And whereas the reason the council has not yet adopted this provision of state law is because of an analysis by the assessing department that stated that the tax credit would not be limited to small two to four unit rental properties, and this would provide a significant unintended benefit to corporate owners of large properties and impact the city's property tax levy. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we request that the city solicitor provide a written legal opinion on whether the local adoption of the Good Landlord Tax Credit could be limited to two to four unit properties and provide both the City Council and the Chief Assessor with said opinion and be it further resolved that we request that the Chief Assessor provide the City Council with the potential impact of a Medford Good Landlord Tax Credit on the city's property tax levy based on the opinion provided by the city solicitor. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lameing. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Saing. Is there any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public on this resolution? Seeing no one in the chambers and no hands on Zoom, on the motion of Councilor Callaghan, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. This is to approve and send to the administration.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. Paper 25-115, submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, requests for four food truck permits for Medford Square Festays at the Clippership Pop-Up Park in August. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully submit to the City Council the following request for a food truck permit in the City of Medford. In addition to City Council approval, vendors are required to adhere to Health Department food safety requirements. Business name, Bono Appetite. Date and time, August 2, 2025, 1 to 5 p.m. Location, Clippership Pop-Up, 75 Riverside Drive, Medford, MA. Event, Medford Square Fest, Brews, Bites, and Beats. About the event, family-friendly with free music, a beer tent, and food. We have for August 9th, at the same time and for the same purpose, Crop Circle Pizza. For August 16th, Bob Cheese Pierogies. And for August 23rd, Bon Appetit Again. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. We have, I think, Nick Belytheau here to talk about it. Nick, I'm going to recognize you if you want to talk about the event.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Nick. I appreciate that. Any comments or questions by members of the council? Seeing none on the motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. 25116 submitted by Mayor Briena Lungo-Koehn, CPA appropriation request, Medford Armory Emergency Facade Restoration. Dear President Bears and City Councilors, on behalf of the Community Preservation Committee, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following recommendation of the Community Preservation Committee, requesting the appropriation of $37,280 from the CPA Historic Preservation Reserve to the Fonzie Condominium Trust to provide funding for emergency facade restoration repairs. The project will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund. The CPC recommendation letter is attached and incorporated. Community Preservation Act Manager Teresa Dupont and representatives from the Fonzie County Minimum Trust will be in attendance to address the Council. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. I will recognize Teresa Dupont, CPA Manager.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Manager Dupont. Do we have any questions from members of the Council? Seeing none, is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan, I'm going to go to Mr. Castagnetti. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any other comment from members of the public on this? Seeing Mr. Fiori, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. I mean, my understanding is this an appropriation, so the money would go directly to them. I don't know if you want to add some information.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli. One second. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We have any other questions for Councilor Tala and for Manager Dupont?
[Zac Bears]: Well, I just got you two confused. I don't know how. On the motion to approve by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Ronnie Dangerfield.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro. Yes. I just do what the clerk tells me.
[Zac Bears]: Paper 25117 submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, donation acceptance. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves under Mass General Law, Chapter 44, Section 53A, a donation in the amount of $500 donated by the Boston Proud Corp in honor of Pride Month and for pride-related activities. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. On the motion of Councilor Callahan to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, for the affirmative, through the negative, the motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you. I almost did it.
[Zac Bears]: City Council 12th regular meeting June 24 2025 is called to order Mr. Clerk, please call the roll Council Callahan is absent.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng, President Bears, present six present one absent the meeting is called to order please rise to salute the flag.
[Zac Bears]: Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records. 25-100 offered by Councilor Scarpelli and President Bears. Whereas the Medford City Council has learned with deep sadness of the passing of Richard Caraviello, a proud lifelong resident of Medford who passed away June 3rd, 2025 at the age of 93. And whereas Richard Caraviello was a devoted son of the late Salvatore and Maria Contrada Caraviello and a beloved husband to the late Angela Moscoe Caraviello, and the late Mildred Tarifo, and whereas Richard honorably served his country in the United States Army during the Korean War, and has continued to serve his community as the longtime proprietor of Salvi Sportwear, a business known for quality women's clothing and family values. And whereas Richard was a devoted father to Richard Caraviello and his wife, Carol, a proud grandfather to Richard and his wife, Lisa, Lauren and her husband, Joey Mangello, and Nicole and her husband, Stephen Gaudet, and a cherished great-grandfather to Gianna, Joey, Richie, Nicholas, Juliana, Isabella, James, and Michael. And whereas Richard was a dear brother of the late Fred, Salvatore, Junie, Frank, Smokey, Tina, Clara, and Armand Caraviello, and is lovingly remembered by many nieces and nephews, extended family members, and friends. and whereas Richard Caraviello will be remembered as a man of deep faith, strong family values, humble service, and unwavering pride in his Medford roots, now therefore be it resolved that the Medford City Council extends its sincerest condolences to the Caraviello family and expresses its heartfelt appreciation for the life, service, and legacy of Richard Caraviello, and be it further resolved that this resolution be spread upon the records of the Medford City Council and a suitably engrossed copy be presented to the Caraviello family as a lasting expression of sympathy and gratitude. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. I served with Rick for four years and I know how much he devoted to this city and also to his family and that he was doing both at a difficult moment. And so I know that this loss is very significant for him and his large family and for all the people in this community who knew Richard Caraviello. And I wanna send my condolences once again to Rick and Carol and his entire family. on the loss of their data. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins to approve. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. You can please rise for a moment of silence. 25101 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the City Council thank and congratulate Karen Breen on her retirement after 25 years as a school nurse at multiple Medford schools, but most recently the McGlynn Elementary and Middle School. Karen has taken care of so many of our children with love and compassion over these years, and we recognize and salute you for your dedication. Enjoy your retirement. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. We'll go three for three. Nurse Breen was also my school nurse at some point, although I can't actually remember which school. And in addition to congratulating her on retirement, I want to thank her and her family for giving her and her service to the city of Medford for all this time. And I hope that she gets to enjoy her retirement with them as well. Is there a motion? On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Records, the records of the meeting of June 10th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins, I understand you've reviewed them in Councilor Callahan's absence.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve the records by Vice President Collins, seconded by seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Shane, can you check the volume levels? And sorry, we're going to be fighting with the AC, which also it's pretty hot in here, but we're going to do our best.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Reports of committees, 24033 offered by Vice President Collins. Planning and Permitting Committee, July 27th, 2025, sorry, July 11th, 20, June 11th, 2025. Report to follow, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. Motion passes. Hearings, 25036 petition to amend a special permit 282 Mystic Ave. Do we have a representative of Clear Channel or the owners of 282 Mystic Ave with us tonight, either in person or on Zoom? Seeing none and seeing as how we have not received the legal opinion we requested from the city legal department, I'm going to reopen the public hearing to continue to a date certain. Public hearing is open. Is there a motion to continue? On the motion to continue by Vice President Collins to our July 15th meeting. Thank you. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 16 affirmative, 1 absent. Motion passes. Public hearing is closed and continued until July 15th. 25-044 public hearing proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance chapter 94 residential districts to be continued to a date certain. This is the residential district proposal currently under review by the community development board. The community development board has put out a schedule where they will be considering this amendment over the next several months. And we'll be taking a vote on this amendment in October. And I encourage residents to engage with the community development board through this process to make your feelings known about the residential district's zoning proposal. I'm gonna reopen the public hearing so we can move to continue to a date certain. Public hearing is open, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to continue to the October 21st, 2025 regular meeting, seconded by. seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Public hearing is continued to Tuesday, October 21st, 2025. Petitions, presentations, and similar papers, 2409, sorry, 25, 25097, petition for a class two slash four auto license, Asbury, BMB, LLC, DBA, Herb Chambers, certified pre-owned Medford. Legal Notice, City of Medford. Pursuant to Medford City Ordinance, Chapter 14, Article 6, Section 14-462, Asbury BMB LLC, DBA Herb Chambers Certified Pre-Owned Medford, located at 60 Mystic Avenue, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, hereby provides notice of its intent to apply for a Class 2 dealer and Class 4 repair license in Medford, Massachusetts. The subject property is presently owned by Herb Chambers, 1172 Inc., DBA Herb Chambers, BMW of Medford, and is already authorized to operate as an automobile dealer and repair shop by the local authorities. The subject property is being sold to the applicant, Asbury B&B LLC, DBA, Herb Chambers, certified pre-owned Medford. These license applications will go before the city council for a public hearing on June 24th, 2025, 7 p.m. at Medford City Hall, second floor, Howard Alden Memorial Chambers, 85 George Behasa Drive, Medford, MA, 02155. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the city clerk's office at 781-393 2425. Welcome. I'm going to go to Councilor Scarpelli, and then we'll go to you for presentation. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: One second.
[Zac Bears]: Could you provide your name and address?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions from members of the council about this paper and petition? Just one for me. Sure. You said it's going to be operating under the same name. Is it going to be operating, is Herb Chambers still going to be operating the facility?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. All right. Do you have any knowledge if that's part of a larger, we have several properties that he owns in the city, is that sort of a new strategy or?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna open the public hearing to anyone who'd like to speak in favor in opposition or otherwise speak on this paper. Public hearing is open. Are you in favor? Yes. Yes. So anyone else who'd like to speak on this petition, please come to the podium in the chamber or raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, I'm declaring the public hearing closed. Is there a motion?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative one absent the motion passes. 25 099 petition for a class one slash four auto license ma g retail holding CJ dr mlc DBA McGovern Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram of Medford. Legal Notice City of Medford, pursuant to Medford Ordinance Chapter 14, Article 6, Section 14-462, MAG Retail Holdings, CJDRM, LLC, McGovern, CJDR, Boston, 29 Mystic Ave, hereby provides notice of intent to apply for a Class 1 dealer license in Medford, Massachusetts. The subject property is presently owned by Graba Realty Trust, 29 Mystic Avenue, Medford MA 02155, and is already authorized to operate as an automobile dealer by the local authorities. The subject property is being sold to the applicant, MAG Real Estate Holdings, Medford LLC, MAG Retail Holdings, CJDRM, LLC, McGovern, CJDR, Boston will be the tenant. These license applications will go before the Medford City Council for a public hearing on June 24, 2025, 7 p.m. at Medford City Hall, second floor, Howard Alden Memorial Chambers, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, MA 02155. applicant mag retail holding CJDRM LLC, McGovern CJDR of Boston. If there are any questions, please read out to the Medford City Clerk's Office at 781-393-2425. Do we have a representative? Great. I'm going to go to Councilor Scarpelli and then we'll come to you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. If you'd like to give the first presentation, we'll move to the front.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Do we have any questions from members of the council? Seeing none from members of the council, I do have just a question or two. Can you apply with fewer acronyms next time? I'm sorry? Your name has a lot of acronyms in it.
[Zac Bears]: OK. And in terms of the ownership, it says that there's a different the properties being sold to one company and then there's a tenant, could you explain that a relationship.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, in Medford in Medford Yes. Okay. I would just note. Certainly in that area, we have a new zoning, the Mystic Avenue corridor district, and we're trying to shift away from auto-related uses in the area. Understood.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And is the Grava family group selling all of their properties?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. I'm gonna open the public hearing to anyone in favor in opposition or who would otherwise like to comment on this license. Public hearing is open. Are you in favor? Are you in favor of the license?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak either in person or on Zoom? In person, please feel free to approach the podium. On Zoom, please raise your hand. Seeing none, I'm declaring the public hearing closed. Is there a motion? I have a motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry?
[Zac Bears]: Oh, sorry about that. Thank you. 25-102, petition for amendment to a common victor's license, Raising Cane's Restaurants, LLC. Let me find this in the packet real quick. I know we have representatives here. To the Honorable City Council, Councilors, The undersigned respectfully request an amendment to our operating hours for our common vixlers license 5am to 7am Monday, 11pm to 12am. And these are the amended, I'm assuming you're not going to be closed from 7am to 11pm. So these are the additions. Okay, so you'd be open until midnight. Every night, and you would be open from five to 7am. And the brief explanation the petitioners are seeking to extend the morning hours of operation to 5am solely for the purpose of accepting deliveries of product and supplies to avoid congestion associated with deliveries during normal business hours of the plaza and the restaurant. In addition, the petitioners requesting an extension of the evening hours of operation from 11pm to 12am. The requested extension of hours of operation is consistent with the hours of operation of similarly situated restaurants, both within the Fellsway Plaza and the surrounding area. Business name, Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers. Business address, 519 Riverside Avenue, Manfred, Massachusetts, 02155. And we have the signature, Kathleen A. Desmond, Esquire, attorney for Raising Cane's Restaurants, LLC. So I will go to Councilor Scarpelli, and then we'll hear from you, Kathleen. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And just so everyone knows, Councilor Scarpelli is the chair of the Subcommittee on Licensing, Permitting and Signs.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Desmond. Do we have any questions for the petitioner? Seeing none, I just had one question. You mentioned that a condition on trucks not idling would be amenable to the applicant? Yes. Great, so if someone could move that along with the 30-60 day, okay. All right, seeing no further discussion, members of the council, and we have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli to approve with a 30, 60 day review of any complaints about deliveries and a condition that the trucks will not idle, delivery trucks will not idle. Does anyone from the public who would like to speak on this matter, either in person or on Zoom, you can come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll. Oh, sorry about that. We have a second from Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative when I have some emotion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: The motion is to spend the rules to paper 25093 and communications from the mayor by Vice President Collins. Second. Second of my councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: affirmative what happens in the motion passes two five zero nine three resolution to address issues on Quincy street. It resolved that the city council discuss issues on Quincy street in particular the rat infestation, street paving, stop signs at the intersection of Quincy street and Osgoode street. Uh Councilor Tseng and I know we do have Ann Driscoll here and this has been uh tabled a couple times so um just wanted to move on that. Councilor Tseng and then we'll go to the podium.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I'm going to go to Anne at the podium. Anne, I think Councilor Tseng talked about a lot, but we have a three-minute limit, so I'm going to give you your full three minutes, and then you can have an additional minute after that. unless some but we have to let someone else speak for us if they want to, and then you can come back for another minute. Right.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Anne. And as a neighbor, I'm on Auburn Street, I know. I'm right at the house at the bottom of the hill on North Street. So, you know, I don't know how people are going 45, 50 miles an hour and making that turn, but they are. So I'm really hoping we'll get some more safety and speed improvements in the area. Thanks. Is there anyone else would like to speak on this item from the public, either in person or on Zoom? Feel free to come to the podium in person or raise your hand on Zoom. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. Any further discussion on this resolution by members of the public or by councillors? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins on the motion approved by Vice President Collins seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Thank you. Communications from the mayor 25106 appropriation of free cash submitted by brand new brand new current use of free cash to your president bears and city councilors are special request and recommend that your honorable body approved the appropriation of free cash the amount of $8,022,021.80 on the following items, $8,000,000 to the Capital Stabilization Fund, given the decades-long backlog of capital improvements needed by the city of Medford, partially outlined below, and $22,021.80 for washers, dryers and appurtenances, and a stove for the Fire Department. A balance of free cash before this vote is $20,023,923.94. As our honorable body knows, there is a long list of needs by the city, including but not limited to the below matters for which we'll be starting the complete review and planning this summer. The numbers shown are estimates and this list does not include water and sewer infrastructure work that lies ahead. $200 million street and sidewalk repair backlog, $15 million for Freedom Way, $4 million for Oak Grove design and construction, $3 million for equipment and vehicles, $3 million for accounting software, $1.5 million for City Hall ADA bathroom renovations, $1 million for Hagner Center, $125,000 for dive equipment, an unknown amount for City Hall HVAC costs, which, as we're all experiencing now, is much needed. respectfully submitted Brianna Lingo, current mayor. I saw the chief of, there's the chief of staff. If there's anything you'd like to add, then we'll go to discussion.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any questions from members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: You have the floor.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Collins. Oh, there you go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Chief of Staff Nazarian.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there a motion? The motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Move to public comment. We'll take public comment in person or on Zoom on this item for, we'll go, each person will have three minutes. If you'd like to comment on this item, you can come to the podium if you're in the chamber, or you can raise your hand on Zoom and we'll alternate between in-person and Zoom. Seeing no hands on Zoom and one person at the podium, name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just wanted to clarify on that. The funding from question seven was used to hire permanent staff in the DPW. And these funds, these funds aren't, as you noted, aren't being appropriated to any specific project. They're being placed in the stabilization fund. under the archaic ways of our state law, money placed in the stabilization fund can be appropriated at any time. But free cash balance, which is essentially just a different reserve account, can only be appropriated after a free cash balance is certified by the State Department of Revenue. And that generally happens in March. So we wouldn't be able to access the funds until that. So for several months, if it stayed in free cash, but in the stabilization fund, if the administration comes up with the free cash plan or makes an appropriation request, we can consider that at any time during the fiscal year. So it's about putting our reserve funds in a place where they can be used instead of in the free cash account where they can't be used until the next certification next spring. So if it isn't moved, it means that the funds are not able to be used for the next nine months, even if there's a priority to use them. And yeah, I mean, We have massive needs. That was part of the discussion in the override campaign last year, but the road and sidewalk funding under question seven was used to hire staff who will be working for the city. And that's an ongoing expense and therefore requires ongoing funding. These dollars, what we've appropriated this year and what's potentially being proposed in the future would be for one time expenses. So that's the difference. I'll go to the podium. Since I see no hands on Zoom, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: I do believe we have the fire chief who's raised his hand so I will take the fire chief on zoom. Chief Evans.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: So that's the next paper. So we'll take it up on the next paper. I have Councilor Leming, then Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I just want to note, and I'll go to the chief of staff, but I don't, but what Commissioner McGivern said was there was a 20% increase in the budget staffing for the highway department. And then the appropriation that we approved in November, it was specifically to hire the highway crew. And what he said was, that because of this increase we will be able to have a crew using the new equipment that has been purchased as well out four days a week instead of two days per week so we would not be outsourcing sidewalk. That is what he said and I've talked to him about it about six times but I'll let the Chief of Staff continue on that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in public participation who hasn't yet spoken? Seeing none, I will go to Mr. Merritt. You have another minute. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion? There's a motion to approve. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Form the affirmative, two in the negative, one absent. The motion passes. 25107 fiscal year 2025 year-end transfer submitted by Mayor Brian Olingo Kern. Dear President Perez and members of the members of the City Council, I respectfully and recommend that Your Honorable Boot Potty approve the following end of year transfer for fiscal 25, $500 legislative expenses to legislative salaries. $15,000 finance salaries to finance expenses. $40,000 assessor salaries to finance expenses. Negotiated salaries, 186,000 to workers' compensation, 186,000. Negotiated salaries, 225,000 to workers' compensation, 225,000. Police salaries, 78,000 to election salaries, 78,000. DPW highway expenses, 2,000 to elections expenses, 2,000. Police salaries, 175,000 to fire salaries, 175,000. DPW highway expenses 40,000 the fire expenses 40,000. Police salaries, 10,000. The PDS salaries, 10,000. DPW highway expenses, 175,000. To parking expenses, 175,000. Parks, DPW, 60,000. To electrical expenses, 60,000. DPW highway to facilities expenses, 10,000. DPW highway to building expenses, 40,000. Legal salaries to legal expenses, 115,000. Treasury salaries to human resources salaries, 20,000. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Brandon O'Kern, Mayor. Madam Chief of Staff, I'll recognize you and I also know we have Finance Director Dickinson as well. So if you'd like him to speak, let me know and I will ask him to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you just to the point could you explain how there was a $500,000 allocation for the fiscal year for DPW, but then because of the union contract positions had to be made available within the union. So all of that had to happen. And then the positions, the three new positions have been advertised, but for most of this year, they were empty. Is that the explanation for why funds are being transferred from that budget?
[Zac Bears]: That's fine. I just wanted to go through the process of filling those positions. Do we have questions from the Council on the transfers? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments or questions by members of the council on this paper? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I have a motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Seeing no further discussion by members of the Council, are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this paper? Please come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Any further public comment on this item? Seeing none, on the motion. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, one in the negative, one absent. The motion passes. 25108 submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, establishing transfer funds to Medford Public Schools Special Purpose Override Stabilization Fund. We've discussed this at several meetings. On November 5, Question 8 was approved for fiscal 25 Medford Public Schools in the amount of $4 million. Based on the outcome of negotiations with union partners, when negotiated payments will be due, The schools anticipate having a balance at the end of fiscal 25. We are requesting to segregate that balance in a special account to ensure the full amount of the override for fiscal 25 is available to MPS for contractual requirements in future years. The special account will be used solely for school purposes as outlined in question 8. In particular, Chapter 40, Section 5B of the General Law stipulates that cities and towns and districts may create one or more stabilization funds and appropriate any amount to the funds. Creation of a special purpose stabilization fund requires a two-thirds vote, and appropriation of monies into and out of the fund requires a majority vote. By taking this action, we will have a source of funding available to supplement the Medford Public Schools annual operating budget in the upcoming fiscal year and future fiscal years. We did receive a presentation from Noelle and Jerry from the finance department as well as the interim superintendent Suzanne Galusi at a previous meeting talking about the plan to use these funds over the next 3 years for the contractual obligations of the Medford public schools. I know the chief of staff was just working on making sure we got the legal language correct, and that's why it's on the agenda tonight instead of at our last meeting. So, you know, we've had quite a bit of discussion on this, but I am happy to hear from the chief of staff or our school department team who is here on Zoom before we move forward. Do you have any comments, Madam Chief of Staff?
[Zac Bears]: Great. And just to confirm, this is creating the special purpose override stabilization fund and transferring the sum of $2,185,000 from the balance remaining in the fiscal 25 Medford Public Schools budget. If the school team, I'm going to recognize our school department CFO. Noelle, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Director Velez. I'm going to go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I'll motion Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there anyone from the public who'd like to comment on this item, either in person or on Zoom? You can come to the podium in person or raise your hand on Zoom. That's a good point. We need to take two votes on this. One to approve and establish the fund, and then one to make the transfer. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. So we have a motion to establish the fund from vice-president Collins, seconded by councilor Leming. Seeing no public comment, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, finding the affirmative, one of the negative, one absent, the motion passes and the fund is established. Do we have a motion to transfer the balance of $2,185,000 from the fiscal 25 Medford Public Schools budget to the fund? On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm affirmative, one of the negative, one absent. The motion passes. Reverting to the regular order of business, 25-103 offered by Vice President Collins, proposed amendments to the Menford Zoning Ordinance, other quarters, districts, for referral to the Community Development Board. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to table to our next regular meeting on July 15th by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: It's not referred to table to table to July 15th.
[Zac Bears]: to Vice President Collins for the next two resolutions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I think the resolution really speaks for itself. We've seen yet another horrific decision from the United States Supreme Court to strip rights away from our neighbors and our friends and allow right-wing extremists to define the scope of what it means to get health care, regardless of what the medical establishment and doctors and nurses, nevermind what an individual person and their doctor determine is best for them. I think this is a disgraceful statement. I know there are a lot of people in this community who are afraid when we see these actions and decisions and laws being implemented. And I am grateful both for our local gender affirming care ordinance protections as well as our state law protections that Massachusetts is not a state that is going down this path, but with this Supreme Court, and with all of the states and all of the people in those states who are so horribly impacted. believe it's essential that we stand in solidarity with them and in just basic statement about the fact that an equal protection clause in our 14th Amendment means equal protection for everyone, regardless of what this court majority seems to think. That's why I put forward this resolution and why I asked for my colleagues' support. I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. No, the next one. Sorry. It's fine. He's going to look it up and come back later.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I was going to make largely a similar point. I think the idea that there is a mutual exclusivity to this Council dealing with local, quote unquote, local issues versus quote unquote, not local issues is a false equivalence. It's not real. And anyone who's been sitting here for the last 2 hours knows that we've spent about 2 hours talking about stabilization funds and school override funds and potholes and, you know, it's not the most fun stuff, but it's what we do. And this is important too. So to do both doesn't come at the expense of either. And as Councilor Leming noted, not only is it a symbolic gesture per se, but it's a statement of values, and it's a reaffirmation of belonging. And that's important. And it doesn't come at the expense of our ability to do anything else that we do. I know way too much about potholes. Thank you, Madam President. And I would just amend to include also the Department of Homeland Security at all versus DVD at all decision. And I will. And I'll make sure that that amendment goes by email. That's the decision that allows the deportation to third countries. So it's a rough week from the Supreme Court so far, and I'm expecting more.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna withdraw the B paper. I'm going to submit a resolution for our July meeting after the completion of the term to review the remainder of the decisions that the Supreme Court may make, and then we can put forward a resolution that speaks fully to their impact.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, and thank you to my fellow Councilors for your consideration tonight of the proposed Values Aligned Local Investments Ordinance. First, I want to ground this conversation in our shared humanity and shared values. When so many people at higher levels of government are pushing for war and private gain, it's our duty in local government to stand up for peace and the public good. It is irresponsible to invest our local public money in industries that profit from violence, harm, and inhumane treatment of human beings, whether that's the fossil fuel industry, weapons manufacturers, for-profit private prison operators, or companies complicit in human rights violations in far too many countries and against far too many people, especially children. This ordinance is grounded in common sense, shared values of peace, justice, and compassion for our fellow human beings. In this moment of warmongering, fearmongering, and rising right-wing extremism coming from the very top levels of our federal government and from so many other governments and dangerous groups around the world, it's more important than ever that we take a comprehensive approach to ensuring that, whenever possible under the law, our public dollars are invested in ways that contribute to the public good, not major forms of harm. While the financial impact may be limited, we are sending a strong message that Medford stands for peace and safety and against war and violence, both here at home and around the world. Second, I want to thank the city administration for communicating with me about this ordinance over the last several months and for the legal review and comments by the city's legal counsel that have been incorporated into this draft. The ordinance structure is very similar to the existing Boston ordinance. It would require city officials to review our city's investments to see if any funds are currently invested in these industries and make that information public. Then investments would be sold and when allowed by state law, it would be a priority to reinvest these funds in supportive efforts that directly benefit our local Medford or Massachusetts communities and businesses. Given state law and the current position of our state pension board, this ordinance would not apply to our city's retirement funds. This ordinance proposes conditions on investments in a number of harmful industries, including private prisons, fossil fuels, weapons manufacturing, and those contributing to severe violations of inalienable human rights like war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. This ordinance does not target or highlight any nation or conflict or company. That's intentional. It would apply to all instances of human rights violations across the world based on international humanitarian law and the work of international legal institutions that uphold international law. I'm confident that our city staff will apply this ordinance to all violators equally and without any fear or favor. As part of my work to draft this ordinance, I reached out to the city administration and Medford Retirement System for their comments. I did receive legal review and I invite city and retirement system staff to share any other questions or concerns about the ordinance before any future action by the city council for final passage and ordainment of this ordinance at third reading at a future council meeting. I look forward to further conversations and meetings with our city staff on this topic as I have offered in my messages over the past several months. Finally, I wanna thank Medford residents who have reached out to share their support or their concerns about this ordinance by email and those who are present tonight to speak during public comment. I look forward to more public input, scrutiny and discussion, and I'm happy to engage with anyone who has an interest in or concerns about this ordinance by email or scheduling a conversation. I've been heartened by the capacity of our Medford community to work through tough issues with respect and civility. While I know that not everyone agrees with this ordinance, I'm confident that we can have a powerful discussion tonight that voices real disagreements, holds space for real concerns that residents may have, and stays grounded in our shared values. Peace, justice, compassion, and staunch opposition to all forms of hate against our neighbors and all violent acts against our fellow human beings. In this moment of rising war, hate, violence, and death, Stoked by our federal government and right-wing extremists across the world, it is essential that communities stand up to oppose the use of our public funds to perpetuate violence and harm. This ordinance helps to fulfill that duty and imperative. Thank you again for your consideration, and I motion to approve for first reading.
[Zac Bears]: I thought the Chief of Staff, if the Chief of Staff wants to answer any Councilor Scarpelli's questions first.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I appreciate the Chief of Staff and Councilor Scarpelli for raising those points. I do want to note two things. First, there is an incredibly similar ordinance in structure and form in Boston that has been implemented under the existing state law. And the redline changes from KP law were incorporated into this draft. I want to note just on the timeline, I submitted this to the chief of staff and to Council on April 4th. I received with a note that I was intending to put this forward in April, late April or early May. That certainly would have given us the time for the meetings that Councilor Scarpelli is talking about. I received a response on April 7th that we're reviewing, I think April 19th that we're still reviewing, and then we got back comments the first week in May. With those comments, I then communicated with the Chief of Staff. my willingness to meet with the treasurer collector, with her, with any boards and commissions that were relevant. I also communicated directly to the chair of the retirement system. I didn't hear back from the chair of the retirement system and I You know, the Chief of Staff was working on setting up a meeting, a meeting was scheduled and then unscheduled and you know suddenly it's two months later. And at that point, I just think there's a fundamental question of doing things the right way and at the right pace. And, you know, I don't question that there may be language changes from a legal perspective. I'm sure we're going to hear from folks tonight that they would like to see language changes from other perspectives. Passage out of first reading does not preclude that. What it does do is it lights a fire under all of us to actually get the work done. So when I ask for the passage for first reading, that means now there's a clock that we have to keep to make those changes, to have those meetings and to get the work done. And given my experience over the last several months, just with the pace of this process, I feel like that's necessary at this time. So that's why I'm proposing it and that's why I'll be moving on it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Public participation under suspension.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: All right, so what that means is we're not going to be taking action tonight. The action will be postponed to a future date, but we have motion to take the public participation section of the meeting to allow the people who are here to say their piece, technically you can say Whatever you want about anything, I have a feeling I understand what the people here are going to be talking about. Each person will have three minutes, and I will take alternating from in person and on zoom. Name and address for the record please.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to Dennis on Zoom. Dennis, name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record at the podium and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. There's no hands on Zoom, so we'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Let's stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: name and address for record you have three.
[Zac Bears]: It's ridiculous. I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't have fought World War II.
[Zac Bears]: That was a reference to the fact that war is intent and inherent in our economic development. I don't think it was. Please, thank you. I'm running this meeting. I don't think it was an intended statement to say that World War II was not a righteous war. And quite frankly, I got a number of messages today from fascists. So thank you. No, I'm saying that I received messages in my inbox. Thank you. No, guys, guys, don't engage. I'm just saying, if we're going to talk about World War II, we're going to talk about the full scope of the communications that elected officials receive in this country. And I don't think anyone in this country or in this city or in this world wants anyone to be subject to violence. That is the exact opposite intent that I put forward with this resolution. Thank you. I'm sorry. I was, I had, I received recently a death wish. Thank you. Name and address for the record you have three minutes. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Guys, let's not take the bait.
[Zac Bears]: Before we continue, I'm gonna go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll continue with public participation. There's no hands on Zoom. So we'll continue at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll continue at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Micah.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing no hands on zoom, we'll continue at the podium. Name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. No hands on zoom, we'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Stay at the podium, name and address for the record please.
[Zac Bears]: Stay at the podium. Stay at the podium, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So at the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna just pause there. We do have a resolution under suspension to consider on that topic later. We've had several meetings on the topic. I'm gonna quickly go to Councilor Lazzaro since she was mentioned and thank you for being here. And I think we're all deeply disturbed by what's been happening in this community and our targeting by federal agents. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Collins, are you good? All right, we'll go to the podium, or what do you want? Okay, great. We'll go back to, actually, I'm sorry, we do have a hand on Zoom. I'm gonna take the hand on Zoom, and then we'll come back to the podium. Lara Germanis, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no further hands on Zoom, I will go back to the podium. Name and address, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have anyone who would like to speak who hasn't spoken on this topic? And Ellen, you did speak right at the beginning, right? Not on this one. All right, then we'll take Ellen, and then we'll go to anyone else who hasn't spoken yet. And then we'll come back around for one more minute for people who have already spoken, but Ellen, you have the floor name and address for the record please you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. One second, we have somebody who hasn't spoken yet on Zoom. Meneer Jimenez, I'll recognize you, and you will have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We have one more person on Zoom who has not spoken yet on this item. Go to Eileen Lerner. Name and address for the record, please, and you will have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, anyone in person or on Zoom who has not spoken, who would like to speak? We'll take you, Mr. Castagnetti. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Is there anyone who has not spoken on this issue who would like to speak? Seeing no hands on Zoom and no one in person, we'll go back to the podium for one more minute each for anyone who has already spoken. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Maybe the rest of the record, you have one minute and about 30 seconds left for that. You'll have one minute. And since I let my go over by 30 seconds, I'll go within 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpell. Thank you. I want to thank everyone for their input tonight. I know that a conversation about lack of neutrality, and support and opposition has been raised by everyone here. And I think what I'm about to say, I was about to say we'll probably please no one or at least displease everyone in some way. I want to be very clear, international law and international norms matter. While it may be impossible to find a standard that everyone can agree to, I firmly believe that the core values of our international order that World War II was fought to establish One, the right of all peoples to self-determination. Two, the integrity of internationally recognized borders of nations. Three, opposition to unilateral military action and the occupation of territory. Four, the inherent right of individuals to life and freedom must be the foundation of that standard. Any nation or company violates that standard, or quite frankly, any non-governmental, non-nation entity someone acting or a company supporting private efforts in any place. That must be the bar. And that is the standard I will continue to push for as this ordinance moves forward. No one is demonizing janitors or people who work every day just to survive here in Medford or abroad. When we say no kings, we say no to the billionaire CEOs, the 1% investors who profit most from the industry of death. As working people, our personal investments, if we have them, and our collective public investments, the investments of our communities, of our government, are our only method to influence the private market. I promise you that even if every city and town in Massachusetts chose not to invest in weapons manufacturers, the financial influence and capital flows of the military-industrial complex will remain well represented. What I didn't say in my introductory floor speech is that this issue is deeply personal to me. I know what it looks like to have friends and loved ones who are afraid for their safety and for their family's safety, both Jews and Palestinians, both in Palestine and Israel and right here at home. I'm not Jewish. I'm not Muslim. I'm not a Palestinian. I'm not Israeli. When I hear real concerns of anyone for their, excuse me, thank you. Councilor Scarpelli, you're out of order. Councilor Scarpelli, please. Councilor Scarpelli, please. Councilor Scarpelli, please. Can you please respect your fellow councilor, sir? You're not. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli, we'll wait. We'll wait, sir. We'll wait, sir. We can wait for your tantrum to finish. Councilor Collins, please just, we'll wait for Councilor Scarpelli to respect the chair and the floor. Well, vote me out. Thank you. When I hear the real concerns of anyone in my community for their safety, I take it very seriously. What I cannot and will not accept is that it is polarizing or divisive to impose the investment of city funds and companies that violate international law and the basic standards of our liberal international order. I'm not anti-Israel. I'm not anti-Palestine. I'm not anti-defending democracy against legitimate threats. I support the right to free democratic states in Palestine and Israel. I am against the standard that says it is inherently anti-Israel or anti-Semitic to oppose the actions of the Netanyahu regime, or that it is anti-Chinese to support the actions of the Xi regime, or that it is anti-Hindu to support the actions of the Modi regime, or anti-Muslim that it is to support the actions of the bin Salman regime, or that it is anti-Korean to support the actions of the Kim regime, or that it is anti-Christian or anti-American to support the actions of the Trump regime. I am deeply concerned about the weaponization and accusations of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-Christianism, anti-Hinduism, and other biases and hate to sifle free speech and legitimate opposition to the actions of governments. I fear that this undermines our efforts to identify and combat hate and hate crimes. And I especially fear that it condones or incites hate or hate crimes. I hold this fear for members of my family and my friends and my loved ones, some of whom are Jewish, some of whom are Muslim, some of whom are neither. I look forward to further discussions, and we may end up disagreeing at the end of those discussions. but I will also hold close the fears of people for their safety. I will work to address them while I also hold to my steadfast principle and commitment to international law that applies equally to all nations and all peoples. Consensus is never possible in a democracy. When we ask, how will we determine our shared values and what we stand for? The answer is simple, self-determination. by electing representatives to pass laws through the legislative process afforded to us by the Constitution of our country and our state, and replacing those elected officials when their actions do not reflect the will of the voters of their community. If this proposal or my values or my actions do not pass democratic or electoral muster, I will accept the result and I will be relieved that I live in a society where self-determination and freedom are at its foundation. Thank you. Is there a motion on the floor? We have an ordinance for third reading. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to take paper 25-090 off the table and approve for third reading, seconded by? Seconded. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry. I'll take your comment. We have a motion. We'll take your comment on the after we took the vote.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, by the affirmative one of the negative one option option promotion passes I'll recognize Councilor say, um, no, I'm all right.
[Zac Bears]: All right, great. Then is there a motion by Council is our on the paper under suspension.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to take paper, it's actually renumbered 25110 under suspension, seconded by. This is the motion by Vice President Collins and Councilor Lazzaro. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Six in the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Be it resolved to paper 25110, be it resolved that the Medford Police Department provide an after action report to the city council by the end of day on Thursday, June 26th on the recent ice arrests in West Medford over the weekend and weekly after report on all ice activity in Medford going forward to be due end of day Thursdays. I recognize Councilor Lazzaro, then Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you on the motion approved by Vice President Collins seconded by second. We'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Any further discussion by members of the Council on this resolution? On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, is there any public participation on this resolution? Yes, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the public on this resolution? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Any motions on the floor? On the motion to adjourn by Vice President Collins, seconded by. Wait, second. Oh, what?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro, I recognize Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes and the meeting
[Zac Bears]: A ydych chi, Shane, neu Kevin? We have Shane.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee. The whole of June 24th, 2025 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yn ddiweddaraf, mae 25109 yn cael ei ysgrifennu gan y Prif Weinidog, Brianna Lundell-Kern. Yn ddiweddaraf, mae 25109 yn cael ei ysgrifennu gan y Prif Weinidog, Brianna Lundell-Kern. Yn ddiweddaraf, mae 25109 yn cael ei ysgrifennu gan y Prif Weinidog, Brianna Lundell-Kern. Yn ddiweddaraf, mae 25109 yn cael ei ysgrifennu gan y Prif Weinidog, Brianna Lundell-Kern. Yn ddiweddaraf, mae 25109 yn cael ei ysgrifennu gan y Prif Weinidog, Brianna Lundell-Kern. Yn ddiweddaraf, mae 25109 yn cael ei ysgrifennu Rwyf hefyd yn gofyn i'r Llywodraeth dweud yn y sesiwn gweithreduol y bydd y cyhoeddiadau'n cael eu cymryd. Bydd Llywodraeth, Lindsay Gill o PwD a'r Arnold yn ymwneud â'r Llywodraeth gyda gwybodaeth ar hyn o bryd. Diolch i chi am eich gwirionedd i'r mater hwn yn ymdrech i'r Llywodraeth. A oes unrhyw ddewis i mewn i'r sesiwn gweithreduol sy'n ymwneud â Chwaraeon Genedlaethol 30A, sefydliad 21A3? Mae'r cyhoeddiadau wedi'u cymryd gan Lywodraeth y Prif Weinidog Collin Ar y cyfrifiad, Mr. Llywodraeth, pan fyddwch chi'n barod, dweud hwnnw i'r rôl.
[Zac Bears]: Diolch.
[Zac Bears]: Rydyn ni'n mynd i'w gynhyrchu. A oes unrhyw ddewis ymlaen? A oes unrhyw ddewis i'w gynhyrchu gan y Cynulliad? Gadewch i mi gofio. Yn ôl i'r Cynulliad, mae'r aelodau'n hoffi. Yn ymwneud â'r cyfrifiad, byddwn i'n ymwneud â'r cyfrifiad ar 7 o'r diwrnod ar gyfer ein cyfarfod arbenigol.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Paula, for the presentation and everyone was at the Q&A who voiced their viewpoints on this. I just want to thank you for the framing and really understanding as we have throughout this zoning process, how much of our existing zoning comes from completely different views on urban planning and the way that cities should be run. The fact that our parking minimums essentially, except for the updates we made just three years ago, reflect a worst case scenario of everybody all the time using a car and the worst day of that ever possibly happening I think goes to show that even calling the minimums is not a good word to use even though it's the word we are stuck with. So I really appreciate that context. I think this is a thoughtful look at all of the options that we have as a community. Something that really struck me is that most cars are parked 23 out of the 24 hours of the day and devoting so much of our land use, our planning thought around car storage versus the spaces that people inhabit or go to on a regular basis and those things that actually build a vibrant community, I think, is something that we're going to be changing and I think that's a really good thing. So I appreciate this, I look forward to the proposals that will be developed based on our five-year now process with hundreds of public meetings and thousands of people to this point, as well as our comprehensive plan and our climate plan and our housing plan so it is the 28th meeting. That's my fault. 28th meeting on this project in this committee so I'm sorry for leaving that off but 28 from us and a few hundred more from everybody else and I think we're really getting down the road to building a community that's a lot more livable, safer, walkable, bikeable, and better for people who use cars as well. Which just includes me. I'm in my car all the time, so I'd like more options too. Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: We're doing hard work and it should be acknowledged exactly correctly. So I'll try to remember next time. All good.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just wanted to confirm that areas outside of the district that's reflecting the map that was presented to the CD board, not the proposed changes that have been discussed at the city board. Is that right?
[Zac Bears]: All right. Great. Thank you. So everything that's kind of not highlighted or a little bit later outside of the proposals for the district.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, I think the triple-decker three-unit makes a lot of sense in the mixed-use 1B as an allowed use. And I just wanted to chime in to kind of just rephrase what I think Paula and Kit, you have both said. The mixed-use districts allow residential only and allow mixed use. And so that's that's just important to note, right? You can build a three family, you know, or take a two family and turn it into a three family. And that may be something that we see quite a bit of, which I think makes sense. But I do appreciate the gradient here, right, that in the districts where there is more capacity allowed that that, you know, can't put a three family on the Elizabeth Grady building, right? Like, that doesn't make sense. That's why that the mixed use to be. So I think that's, that's a helpful note. And I appreciate that you had that highlighted as something we should talk about.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I mean, I think we're really getting at the core of this whole conversation at this point, right? Zoning is a complex formula of what is in the base district, what are the dimensional requirements, what are the performance standards, and what are all of the other requirements, right? The building code, the city's stormwater regulations, state law that may be applicable, for example, for like ADUs, And, you know, we're talking about the tree ordinance as well, and the tree ordinance zoning amendment that would affect trees on private property and would increase the cost of removing existing trees, right? So what Paola said, I think is really important for everyone to remember about every district and every zoning proposal, right? Just because a district allows a certain number of units or a certain size of structure and says that the minimum lot area is something, most of the, basically almost always, the actual structure that can be built on that lot is going to be less tall with fewer units than what the district may allow at the maximum, because most of the lot are not, with the dimensional requirements, can't build those structures, right? So if we use things, it's a great, it ties right into the parking, right? The parking minimums were set as these maximums, which means we've completely limited all of these other possible types of construction and typologies in the neighborhoods we might want to have. If we use the lot area as maximums, or if we use the unit number as maximums, we limit all of the other things that we may want and may be possible. So people get concerned when they see the headline numbers. And zoning is the starting point of development and planning and what our neighborhoods look like. It's not the end point. So if we choose to be overly restrictive on these things that are the starting point, then the end point is going to be even smaller and we're not going to see the results that we want. And I think that's really the key principle to remember here. The vast majority of even new project, vast majority of properties aren't going to change. because the people who live there and own them don't want them to change. And the ones that do are not going to change to the maximum edge that they're going to change to because all of these other factors need to be factored in. So I think that's just really the core and essential principle of what we're doing here and what everyone in the public needs to understand. So I just wanted to say all of that to also add that from a environmental green space, open space, permeable surface, pervious surface standpoint, these proposals are significantly better than the existing zoning conditions, which allow people to pave over their entire lot with tar, you know, with asphalt. And that's a disaster for stormwater, for green space, for the look of our communities. I live 15 doors down from a corner lot that's completely paved over, and it's a completely different look than just a lot on the other side of the street that has some green space. So, yeah, from an environmental perspective, we are really focused on making the zoning more supportive of open space and green space and pervious surface because our zoning right now doesn't factor that. I mean, essentially our zoning right now says, let's build small houses where not a lot of people can live in them, where people can own as many cars as they may want, and we're going to store them, and we don't have any green space at all. And I think those are all three values that are not where we are as a community. I don't think it's actually where we've ever been as a community. But our zoning is anachronistic, it's out of date, and it doesn't serve our needs. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I had, since we're talking about dimensionals I had one question. It's kind of related to another thing, but I think it applies here. You know, at least applies if if there's. 80 years involved, um. The current, uh. Accessory structure, dimensional requirements. Are we proposing any changes to those. At this time.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, everything is pointing towards the existing 94 dash 4.3, which I actually think. Um, is a is a fine, uh. Section as it is, I was just wondering and checking if we were, um, I've gotten a couple of questions. If the new. principle structure dimensionals would apply to accessory structures and I said well it looks like the way that the you know proposed ordinance amendments are written it just points to the existing dimensionals for accessory structures and I just wanted to double check on that.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, and I would personally, I appreciate that answer and I would also think it might be useful to go through. Some of the dimensional requirements, and then the actually, maybe more of what I'm saying is the performance standards that are in. This document, I've noticed some updates to that, and I think it's really helpful for people to understand. Uh, how the performance standards, you know, impact what can be built on a lot. Um, I think we have a lot of really good performance standards in here, but, you know. They also go right back to that kind of core principle, which is that. you know, the district may say x is allowed on x lot of x size, but actually dimensional requirements and performance standards mean that what can actually be built is relatively significantly smaller and less dense.
[Zac Bears]: I was just going to say the same thing as I was reading these earlier and looking at that question. Because the dimensional requirement for the principal structure is less restrictive than for the protected use ADU, that would not have been a correct decision to have made. But personally, I think it makes sense maybe for the local use historic structure, but also I think we could get into Yeah, that would be the case where I think it would make most sense to have the same protection for the protected use but that's just my two cents. I'm a little more, I think a little less gung-ho on the second local use ADU having exactly the same protections as the protected use ADU. That's just my opinion.
[Zac Bears]: I think for me, just going through the performance standards changes would be helpful.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I was, I was talking about like the, I think, particularly the height step backs the light, the shadow the all of that.
[Zac Bears]: Just wanted to also note that pre existing non conforming structures and uses have additional protection, though. even if you are in a structure and you want to do work on it or make changes to it, there's a lot of changes that can be made even if the zoning says that there are other requirements. So that's just another factor that should go into people's minds as we discuss this as well. And it's the reason that we have a lot of businesses and districts that don't allow business right now, right? They were pre-existing uses before the zoning, the old zoning was passed. That's why there's so much non-conformity. Well, it's one reason that there's a lot of non-conforming structures and uses in places that the current zoning wouldn't allow new similar things to be built. And I also have a motion, but I can wait until after anyone else has comments or if there's public participation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, I have motion to report the other corridors draft out of committee and keep the paper in committee and adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: 11th regular meeting. Medford City Council is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears. Present. Seven present, none absent. Please rise to the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. The records of the meeting of May 27th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Isn't that nice? A voice vote. Let's keep trying to do that. Reports of committees, 25039, Committee of the Whole, May 27th, 2025, report to follow. This was Committee of the Whole, chaired by myself. This was our final budget meeting. Is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Collins, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24-033, offered by Vice President Collins, Planning and Permitting Committee, May 28th, 2025. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve seconded by seconded by Councilor Lazzaro all those in favor. Opposed motion passes 2403 for offered by Councilor Callahan public works and facilities committee June 3 2025 report to follow Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Callahan to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24073, 24354, and 25041 offered by Councilor Leming. Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, June 4th, report to follow Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Council, I'm going to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Refer to committee for further discussion. 2425094, I'm going to call the vote.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng? President Bears?.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Is there a motion on the motion to refer to the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee by Councilor Collins? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Hearings, 25036, petition to amend special permit 282, Mystic Ave. Notice of a public hearing, City of Medford City Clerk's Office. The City of Medford City Council will conduct a public hearing on April 8th, 2025 at 7 p.m. in the Howard F. Alderman Memorial Auditorium on the second floor of Medford City Hall at 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, relative to an amendment requested by Clear Channel Outdoor On behalf of the property located at 282 Mystic Ave, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, the petitioner is seeking an amendment to a previously granted special permit. petitioner is seeking the amendment to upgrade and replace two digital screens on the sign board located at the property and to ask for review and potential adjustment slash reduction in the permit fee. A copy of the full text of the requested amendment can be reviewed in the office of the city clerk, room 103, Medford City Hall. Please call the Medford City Clerk's office at 781-393-2425 for any aids and accommodations by order of the Medford City Council, signed Adam Herdevis, City Clerk. So we've been continuing this one for a while. Do we have a representative from the petitioner on Zoom or in person? Not seeing a hand raised. All right, I'll open the public hearing then we can move that. I'm going to open the public hearing. reopen the continued public hearing on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to continue the public hearing to our next regular meeting seconded by seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor. Opposed motion passes the public hearing is continued. 25 044 public hearing proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance Chapter 94 residential districts. This is also been continued from our last meeting. We still do not have a recommendation from the Community Development Board, which is having their continued public hearing. I believe next week to the date on that on June 18th. So I will reopen the public hearing. We do not have a proposal to consider, so we need to continue the public hearing to a date certain. Public hearing is reopened. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to continue the public hearing to the June 24th regular meeting by Councilor Collins, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Let's continue to June 24th. If we don't have a recommendation from the CD board, I will be sure to note that again in the agenda. Petitions, presentations, and similar papers. 25082, petition for a grant of location, National Grid, 197 and 203 Fulton Street. Petition for a grant of location, National Grid, North Andover, Massachusetts, proposed joint-owned pole, 197 Fulton Street. There's a petition by Massachusetts Electrical Company and DBA National Grid for permission to remove and replace a joint-owned pole including necessary sustaining and protecting fixtures located between 197 and 203 Fulton Street and labeled 132 as depicted in the sketch. The engineering division recommends the city grant that this grant of location be approved with the following conditions. Grant of location is limited to the removal and replacement of one joint-owned utility pole within the sidewalk between 197 and 203 Fulton Street. and labeled 132 as depicted on the sketch. Before starting work, the contractor shall notify Dig Safe and obtain all applicable permits from the engineering division. No other utility structures, conduits, duct banks, pipes, or any other appurtenances are adversely impacted. National Grid shall ensure that all sewer, water, and drain lines are marked prior to any excavation. Placement of the joint-owned utility pole must provide at least 36-inch clearance to the accessible travel path around the structure in accordance with ADA regulations. Cement concrete sidewalk restoration shall be done at the time of pole removal and in consultation with the engineering division per the requirements of an approved PRO permit. Any concrete sidewalk damage during this work must be replaced in kind and cleanly cut at the control joints. The entire concrete panel will be required to be rebuilt. Temporary asphalt pavement can be used during interim conditions. However, the timing should not extend more than 30 days. Project site must be swept after installation or daily and shall be kept free of debris. The Fulton Street is a narrow, heavily-traveled roadway and requires a mandatory police detail. Engineering Division recommends the applicant consult with Metro Police Department traffic sergeants prior to scheduling this work, since work hours may be restricted outside of normal operations. At least 72 hours prior to the start of the project, National Grid must coordinate about our communications with the Director of Communications and submit any required information that may be requested to effectively inform the public. Approved, City Engineer. Do we have representative from National Grid on this for the light pole. You just provide your name and address and give us any more information on this project.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Does the city engineer have anything to add? All right. I'm going to open the public hearing to anyone in favor, opposed, or otherwise would like to comment on this grant of location. I'm assuming you are in favor. Yeah, great. We will note that. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this grant of location for the light pole replacement? Councilor Callahan, do you have a question for the petitioner?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Anyone else who would like to speak in favor, in opposition, or otherwise has a comment? Seeing none in the chamber and no hands on Zoom, declaring the public hearing closed. Is there a motion? Motion to approve with the conditions of the Engineering Division by Councilor Collins, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative, none on the negative. The motion passes. 25083, petition for a grant of location, National Bridge, North Andover, Massachusetts, proposed joint one pool, 574 Fulton Street, You are hereby notified by order of the Bedford City Council that the City Council hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at Bedford City Hall and via Zoom on Tuesday, June 10th, 2025 at 7 p.m. on a petition by Massachusetts electrical company DBA National Grid for permission to install a joint own pole including necessary sustaining and protecting fixtures located at 574 Fulton Street. The City Engineer, Engineering Division recommends the spirit of location be approved with the following conditions. They are functionally the exact same conditions that I just read for the previous poll, so I'm just not going to do it again for everyone's sake. The only change is that temporary patch using bituminous concrete pavement will not be permitted, but the concrete sidewalk will be replaced. So that's the only difference as far as I can tell. I'm looking at Owen, and I'm getting a thumbs up, so I read it right. Do you have anything to add on, or just if you could let us know a little bit more about this?
[Zac Bears]: Do you have any questions for the petitioner, for members of the council? Seeing none, I'm gonna open the public hearing to anyone in favor, opposed, or who otherwise has a comment on this grant application. Public hearing is open. Are you in favor? Yes. Great. Is there anyone else, either in person or on Zoom, who would like to speak in this public hearing? I do see a hand raised on Zoom. I'm going to recognize Joe DiCostantopoulo. Give me one second. So I'm going to ask you to unmute and you'll have three minutes. Please provide your name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Thank you. Could you answer the question about the transformer and the impact on the road?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you for coming and thank you for registering your opinion as part of the public hearing. And thank you to our representative from National Food for answering some questions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, have a good night. Are there any further comments on this grant of location as part of the public hearing? Seeing none, is there a motion? Oh, sorry. I'm closing the public hearing. Is there a motion? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve with the conditions of the engineering division by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. 25084, petition for a grant of location, National Grid, North Andover, Massachusetts, proposed joint on pole 287 Main Street and Frederick Ave. You are hereby notified by order of the Medford City Council that the Medford City Council will hold a public hearing in the council chambers at Medford City Hall on Tuesday, June 10th, 2025 at 7 p.m. On a petition by Massachusetts electrical company DBA national grid for permission to install a joint on full including necessary sustaining and protecting fixtures located at 574 Fulton Street. It'd be where oh. that's a misprint. 287 Main Street sorry about that. Wherefore, it prays that after due notice and hearing as provided by law, be granted a location and permission to install two joint-loan pole and two five-inch conduits together with such sustaining and protecting fixtures as it may find necessary for the transmission of electricity at 287 Main Street and Frederick Avenue, Medford, Massachusetts. The Engineering Division received a joint-loan pole petition from National Grid that includes two additional joint-loan poles near 287 Main Street at Frederick Avenue, dated March 12, 2024. The Engineering Division recommends this grant of location be approved with the following conditions. The grant of location is limited to the one additional joint-owned utility pole located within the cement concrete sidewalk near 287 Main Street at Frederick Avenue and labeled P2698-1 and one additional joint-owned utility pole located within the cement concrete sidewalk near 271 Main Street labeled P2698-50 as depicted on the sketch. The contractor shall notify DigSafe and obtain all applicable permits. No other structure shall be impacted. Placement must provide at least 36 inch clearance of the accessible travel path and the placement must not be located in the wheelchair ramp. The concrete restoration shall be done at the time of installation in consultation with the engineering division regarding the requirements of an approved PRO permit. Concrete sidewalk damage during this work must be replaced in kind and cleanly cut at the control joints. Temporary patching using concrete pavement will not be permitted. And the project site must be swept after the installation or daily and kept free of debris. There's going to be a police detail and there's going to be 72 hour notice so that the Director of Communications can coordinate with National Grid on a better communications. The engineering division also recommends the grain of location for the five inch conduits. It's limited to two additional conduits within the cement concrete sidewalk. Digsafe notification, no impact on other structures. Placement is within an accessible ramp in accordance with ADA regulations. The reconstruction of the wheelchair ramp and the reciprocal ramps located across Main Street and Frederick Avenue, three total, must also be completed. The city can provide engineering design plans for this reconstruction work. Cement concrete sidewalk restoration will be done at the time of installation, and concrete sidewalk damage will be replaced in kind and cleanly cut at control joints. Temporary concrete patching will not be permitted. Site will be swept daily or after installation. Police detail will be required and there'll be a 72-hour notice. Approved, City Engineer. Is there anything you'd like to add, Mr. City Engineer? Seeing none, I do have a letter. Well, I'll let the petitioner speak to it and then I'll open the public hearing.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have any questions for the petitioner or members of the council? Seeing none, I'm going to open the public hearing. Are you in favor? Yes. Great. We also received a letter. Dear Mr. her to be made to an end 2025 I'm writing in regard to the petition for a grant of location to five zero eight four, please let it be known to the city council and other responsible parties that this exact location at the corner of Frederick Avenue and Main Street. was dedicated as Rapallo Corner by Mayor McGlynn in 2010. The Rapallo Corner sign is currently displayed at that location. Ceremony was covered by the Boston Globe on November 10, 2011, and also local papers wish to ensure that the Rapallo Corner sign is not removed, or if it be necessary, prominently displayed on the same corner. The Rapallo family was brought up at 12 Frederick Avenue, the closest one to the corner. They and their descendants lived there for most of the last century. Sal and Anna had seven sons and two daughters. Four of the sons fought in different branches of the military during World War II. My mother, Elizabeth Rapallo, Camerata, now 103 years old, along with her parents, saw each of their brothers off from this corner many years ago. We would be grateful if you pass this information along to the city councilors, National Grid, and other associated entities in the project for their review. We would hope that this honor will be preserved for years to come. We would ask that this item be included on the agenda. Please contact me if you need additional information. Please send the sketch referenced in the notice to this email. Respectfully, Stephen Camerata, graduate, Medford High School, 1967. And I won't read the contact information. Is this going to, it's not, the city engineer's indicating this isn't going to affect the sign at the street sign? Great, so that will be all set. Do we have any other comments from members of the public on this public hearing regarding the polls at 587 Main Street? Seeing none in the chambers and no hands on Zoom, I'm declaring the public hearing closed. Do we have a motion? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve the two grants of location with the conditions from the Engineering Division, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. That would be affirmative. None the negative. The motion passes. Thank you very much. I apologize that you will never be able to figure out exactly when you're going to need to be here or be able to leave. We got you out early tonight, but you were here, I don't know what, till 11 last time? You were keeping track. Thank you. All right. Motions, orders, and resolutions. 25088 offered by Council is RO, whereas Immigration and Customs Enforcement has engaged in operations in Medford, and whereas ICE notifies the Medford Police Department when they will be engaged in operations in Medford, and whereas the Medford Police Department is obligated to the residents of Medford to protect their rights and to enforce laws, and whereas it may be a risk to Medford police officers to disclose ICE operations before they happen, be it resolved by the city council that the chief of police deliver a report of ICE operations in Medford after the fact on a monthly basis. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callihan, do you have any further comments from members of the council? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna go to Councilor Leming and Councilor, oh, I think it's actually Councilor Scarpelli, then Councilor Leming, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro, then Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just wanted to note that Captain Camino is chairing a traffic commission meeting tonight. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Do we have anything else from members of the council? I'm just going to give my very short two cents, which is I think that in these extraordinary times, we sometimes have to call on people to do more than the minimum and You know, when we have people obviously and flagrantly violating the constitution and the laws of our country, we have to ask what our response looks like. That goes beyond just what we've done in the past. I'm gonna go to public participation. We have two hands on Zoom. It looks like we have some people lining up at the podium. And then I also have a comment to read in, which I'll do after everyone has spoken. We'll start at the podium. You'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: You're on.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your intent. Thank you, Sharon. One second, Andy. Andy Castagnetti. Your hand's raised on Zoom, but you're here. I'll take you in person. Okay, thanks. Then I'm going to go to Steve Schnapp on Zoom. Steve, name and address for the record, please. I'm going to let you start your video and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Stay at the podium. Name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just on that point, you know, we can, this is a request for additional reporting beyond what's required by the ordinance. So if someone wants to propose an ordinance amendment to go further, and just as one Councilor who voted for the welcoming city ordinance, we did vote on that before this administration began its assault on our communities. And so I don't think a lot of people had the hindsight or had the foresight, I should say, to realize how bad this would be, but maybe we didn't. And in hindsight, we're asking for more. At the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Zoom. I'm going to go to Kathleen Mills-Curran. Kathleen, I'm going to request that you unmute and allow you to start your video, and then you'll be able to speak. And please provide your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Andy, sorry, just a minute. I need to take a minute and take everyone in order. You can have your second go at it once we've heard from everybody the first time. Andy, I'm going to unmute you. I know I see you, I see you in the hall, but I'm going to unmute you. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can hear you. I'm going to need you to shut that off if you want to talk at the podium.
[Zac Bears]: We're going to get feedback if you do that. We can hear you. It worked. It worked, so I'm going to take you at the podium now.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. If there are people who'd like to make a second comment for a minute, they can raise their hand on Zoom or come to the podium. Sharon, you're going to have a minute.
[Zac Bears]: You're next one more minute.
[Zac Bears]: Mike, I got to cut you off there, but thank you. Steve Schnapp, you're going to have one more minute. you should be able to start your video.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Steve. I'm planning to be there on opening day. Do we have any further comment from members of the public on the resolution? Seeing none of the chambers are on zoom.
[Zac Bears]: I have it as amended to request a weekly written report and a presentation of that report at Council regular meetings.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to approve as amended by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Councilor Leming?
[Zac Bears]: So that's, that's why I have a weekly written report presented at council regular meetings. Yes. They were friendly amendments by Councilor Collins, but I'm taking them as formally presented by Councilor Lazzaro. All right, on the motion to approve as amended by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I need to read something, and I apologize. There was one written comment on the previous resolution. I'm reading it into the record. I'm in full support of Councilor Lazzaro's resolution requiring monthly police reports on ICE activities in Menford. Weekly would be even better, given the increasing frequency of ICE detentions. We need to know what is going on in our community. We keep us safe. Thank you. Ellen Epstein, 15 Grove Street. Sorry, Ellen, that I didn't read that before. My apologies. All right, we have a motion from Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng to suspend the rules to take the paper under suspension.
[Zac Bears]: It's been distributed by email. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. 25098 offered under suspension by Vice President Collins, whereas the Trump administration has deployed Marines and National Guard troops in the city of Los Angeles to quell protest, and whereas this blatant overreach and misuse of federal resources are already being legally challenged by the state of California as illegal, And whereas this dangerous escalation has been justified by disinformation, including incorrectly referring to residents, exerting their right to protest the government as quote insurrectionists. And whereas the Trump administration has stated the intention to levy even more brutal force upon other cities who protest ICE raids and detentions. and whereas this illegal overreach and the precedent that sets threatens every municipality, be it resolved that the Medford City Council condemns the deployment of the federal military into the City of Los Angeles and in the strongest terms possible, and be it further resolved that the Medford City Council stands in solidarity with the City of Los Angeles and its residents. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: It was Alabama in 1965 to enforce the Civil Rights Act.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. The only other thing I don't really get here, and Councilor Leming can correct me, is I don't understand how they're getting around posse comitatus. You're not supposed to deploy the military to do police actions in the United States. But this administration is declaring things, emergencies that are obviously not emergencies. Apparently we've been under invasion for 10 years. I had no idea. Are there members of the public who'd like to speak on this? Okay, we'll go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Someone speaking? Okay. Name and address for the record, you have three minutes. Please try to stick to three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, we'll stay at the podium. Seeing no hands on Zoom, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there more public comment on this resolution? Yeah, go ahead. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone who hasn't talked yet want to talk on this item?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no further public participation, is there a motion on the floor? On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Be it resolved that City Council discuss issues on Quincy Street, in particular regarding a large... On a motion to table the resolution by Councilor Tseng, seconded by... Seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? motion passes. 2, 5, 0, 9, 5, offered by Councilor Tseng, Councilor Kahns, Councilor Callahan. Be it resolved that the City Council explore solutions to reduce incidents of heavy trucking on neighborhood streets lacking the capacity, including heavy commercial vehicle exclusions and home-roll petitions. Who wants it? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve the referral, or the motion to refer to the Public Works and Facilities Committee by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Communications from the Mayor. 25039, submitted by Mayor Brian Oliver O'Kern, fiscal year 2026, budget submission revised. I'll read the revisions. Facilities, or sorry, I'll start from the top. Elections is revised to 394,929. PDS, 923,163. Facilities, 2,102,129. Police, 15,083,897. Parking, 1,062,740. Recreation, 639,351. DPW Highway 14,029,809. Cemetery 1,072,842. Parks 954,765. Forestry, $618,365. Council on Aging, $206,057. Insurance, $31,220,000. And then total revised figure for the total City General Fund budget is $205,852,504. For the enterprise fund, water and sewer has been revised to $26,941,022. The total revised total for the water and sewer enterprise fund is $29,277,779. And with that, we'll go to the chief of staff and the finance director. We also have the superintendent of schools and our school finance chief and finance team here. So we'll start with the Chief of Staff and then we'll come to you guys with any questions and updates. But Madam Chief of Staff, if you could just speak to the revisions a little bit and not necessarily what they entail in detail, but if there's anything significant in any of those that you want to discuss. Oh, sorry, I gotta turn on your microphone. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Red is good.
[Zac Bears]: And that's for the tax levy that is highlighted. Correct.
[Zac Bears]: Could you just read that number again so we get it? Certainly.
[Zac Bears]: It was elections, it was PBS. I could read them off if you want to.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Facilities.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And since you're going off memory, I can also read, I'll tell you if it's personal or ordinary. Police personnel.
[Zac Bears]: We had parking enforcement ordinary expenses.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just pulling up the original submission. I might be able to give you the difference in the amount as well.
[Zac Bears]: We had recreation. That's personnel. It's down about $2000.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. DPW Highway increased 20,000 in personnel and 60,000 in ordinary.
[Zac Bears]: And there were other some other GPW ones that I... Yeah, it looks like there were personnel adjustments, some slightly higher, some slightly lower. 2,000 lower in cemetery, 10,000 lower in parks, 6,000 lower in forestry.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, there's a $4,000 reduction in personnel on the Council on Aging budget, similar.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. We love Suzanne. best wishes to Suzanne in connection with Venture. Insurance, we had $31,105 million go up to $31,220 million.
[Zac Bears]: And just to confirm, this should read, and to meet the appropriations, the sum of $205,304,412.76 be raised and appropriated from the fiscal year 26 tax levy and other general revenues of the city, and then the transfers should stay the same, and that hits that 205-852-504 number? That's correct. Thank you. Great. Do you have questions for the administration on the revisions to the fiscal 25 budget? I see Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Two other questions for the Chief of Staff and the Finance Director on the revised budget proposal. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Great, yeah. Can somebody grab that? Thanks. Thanks, Ted.
[Zac Bears]: Bob got that in early. Wow.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, we always talk about time travel.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I'm going to Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins, then Councilor Kelly.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to add one thing, which is that there was also a historical practice of using Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund retained earnings to keep the rates down and not to invest in the capital needs of the system. And that is one of the things that has driven us. I don't know how much is related to that versus how much is related to the fact that the water and sewer infrastructure is 100, 220 years old, probably a lot more on the latter, but There was a lot of use of retained earnings to keep rates low. And so we're seeing I'm guessing the rate studies going to say there's going to need to be a significant increase in rates to address the fact that all the water mains are collapsed. Well, in serious condition. Yeah, one of those facts that the rates have kind of been artificially capped lower because because of that.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I'm going to go to Councilor Leming and then Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I was a bit of a sidebar here about what's on for schools. Do you need an answer to what you just said, or am I going to Councilor living. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: So, yeah, I was going to bring that up if, if nobody else brought it up after everyone had a chance to speak, but since it's been brought up, I just wanted to say, I think Getting our most bang for the buck is really important here. And I appreciate the diligence in that. I don't think spending 15 of the 22 million on Freedom Way would be the most responsible decision for us to do. We could probably do it, but it probably isn't the best thing to do. I also think, though, that the point is well taken about the plan and the timeline. And I think there's one thing, which is we're taking a deep dive look at the capital plan and the CIP and how that translates to free cash. We know that the order of magnitude of need is so much more significant than the available funding. But I think there's another piece of this, which is just to be really clear and say, and it goes to the point of like establishing, either using one of the existing funds or establishing this fund for capital investments, right, which is we have a stabilization fund that is like the stabilization fund that is the reserve fund. And that meets the purposes of what the state talks about when we're talking about having reserves. And I think understanding that is our targeted reserve balance fund. This is the fund we're really planning not to touch. It's our rainy day fund. It's our reserve balance fund. we have a capital stabilization fund, and that's like, if a roof falls down, right now we're using it more for the ad hoc stuff, right? But I think it really is more of the, we're keeping this reserve, we have the reserve fund, we have a capital stabilization fund, which is for things that happen during the year, for emergencies, capital needs, and then we have an investment fund, which maybe won't get there this year, but I think it should be all of the rest of the money that is available in reserves, the fund balance for the city essentially, right? And that is the money that could go to these larger capital needs. And to me I think really being clear with the public like, here's our reserve fund, this is the target and goal balance. We're at that, and we will replenish that every year if we ever use it. here's our capital stabilization fund for emergencies, and we are going to replenish that every year, and we're using it for capital emergencies. And then here is our capital investment fund, and that is, you know, for these bigger questions. And just having that delineation, instead of just having it be nebulously free cash, free cash, free cash, and then anyone can say whatever they want about free cash, even though may not be related to reality of free cash, It gets much easier to explain to people why we have these fund balances, where they are, what are our targets and goals and what are their purposes. And so that's the work that I think we've been talking about that you just raised that I really hope we can advance because we can do that and be a lot clearer about the system that we're using to hold these funds and why they are in the buckets that they're in. And hopefully we have, you know, good growth years and the free cash is just essentially replenishing, you know, replenishing those stabilization funds and then the balance can go into an investment fund or however we would want to do that. And then there's that other question of what are our needs and how do we get our most bang for the buck using that investment fund, you know, piece to fund our things. And my understanding is that regardless of what bucket it's interest accruing, so, you know, that piece gets to live too. And there'll be carryover and we're not, you know, I'm not of the mind of saying just because we have 500 million in need, we should spend all 22 million next year. But I also agree that we need to be moving faster. So those are some of the discussions we've been having just to put that context out there since you raised it. And I think that would be really informative and helpful. That first piece of just like, this is where the money is and why. And quite frankly, as little of it as possible in free cash since that gets twisted. That I think is really helpful. And then that's not to diminish my fellow colleagues longer questions about being more urgent on using the funds available for one-time projects and what is the plan as relates to capital plan. So it's just those are the kind of two pieces that I really think about it. And if you want to talk, since I just talked for a while, I'll go to Emily and Kit.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, and you know, I really appreciate that. I know that it was a real rush to the finish line on the ARPA stuff, and I know how important that was, and that quite frankly, we wouldn't have this free cash reserves funding for capital investment question if we hadn't done that, and if we didn't have ARPA, and if the federal government had never come in, because that was basically what is the reason for most of these balances. And I just want to say, I think one of these is kind of just financial question, like where's the money? Why is it there? What is the goal of each of these things? And then there's how are we spending it, which is a much bigger question where like the prioritization comes in. So that was just what I was trying to add by kind of framing those two buckets of process. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Do we have any further questions? Seeing none, do we have any comments from members of the public on the proposed fiscal 26 budget? Yes. Name and address for the record, please, if three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to look at Bob the whole time because I think I'm going to watch his face as I make mistakes and what I'm about to say and maybe Bob can correct them. But my understanding what we're talking about here funds that are in the stabilization fund are free cash. Essentially the city's cash assets that are not committed to something that the treasurer It makes it that those are we basically pull that with other cities in through this through a state vehicle, and that that is how we hold those but I'm not 100% sure I'm going to go to the treasurer holds.
[Zac Bears]: Mass Municipal Depositors Trust, is that right? MMDT, Mass Municipal Depositors Trust, is that the acronym?
[Zac Bears]: And I think what Mike is asking is, you know, could the city invest those cash reserves in some sort of local bank that funds local businesses or something? Is that what you're asking?
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. It sounds like suffice it to say that in the short term, state law governs a bunch of this and we are keeping our cash assets in the places required by law and also the places that gain the most interest. And looking at some more locally focused places to put the city's cash assets would need to be studied more and make sure it complies with the law that the state has. All right, any further comment from members of the public on the budget? Seeing none, any last comments from members of the council on the budget? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And so we have the revised submission and then there was one amendment tonight which was just correcting the words around the, I have it here, the $205,304,412.76. Great. Is there a second on the motion? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. I just want to thank the administration and our department heads and members of the Council, members of the public. This is our second time around with the budget ordinance, and I know it was a lot of work to pass the ordinance, and I think we're seeing some of the fruits of that. We are here on June 10th. On what is I think our ninth or 10th meeting on the budget. I have no a colleague in Somerville, they're just starting department head budget presentations tonight. So, and to be honest, my first few years on the council that is where we were to we got a budget. Early June we frantically rushed and with night meetings and you know marathon. four to eight to 12 hour Saturday session, which I don't think is really best practice to get through our budget hearings and budget meetings and, you know, then come down to the wire of is the budget going to pass? Are we going to have to schedule a special meeting? And are we going to get it done by June 30th? And what does a one 12th budget look like? And those were the days. So, I just want to note that the process, I think, starting a lot earlier, being collaborative, engaging the council early in the process, working closely together with the administration, with our finance director, chief of staff, the mayor, the whole finance team, that we really are, again, as I said before, seeing the fruits of that collaborative process to create that ordinance and in a way that I think brings a lot more stability and consistency and, you know, as much certainty as you can ever have in municipal budgeting to the process. And so I just wanted to thank everyone for their involvement in that. Thank our colleagues on the school committee for the work that they do as well with their process, which is also in recent years started moving much earlier and I think it also gives a lot of opportunity for public engagement as well. So I'm really heartened that we are where we are, that our budget process is the way that it is and that it is working so well. I think it's really a testament to the collaboration between this council and the city administration. And I'm glad it's an ordinance and hopefully they'll keep following it for a long time after all of us are not here doing it. feels a lot better than sitting here on June 28th at 2 a.m. That was some fun times, y'all. So with that, we have a motion from Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng, the Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Submission Revision as amended. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six the affirmative, one in the negative, the motion passes and the fiscal year 2026 budget is approved. All right, 25096 submitted by Mayor Brian Alango Kern, appropriation of free cash and retained earnings. Dear President Bears and city councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves the appropriation of One, free cash in the amount of $2,136,519.19 on the following items. $1,469,519.19 to replenish the capital stabilization fund to $5 million. Current balance, $3,530,480.81. $271,000 for school network switches and wireless access points project. $216,000 for school mini split replacement project. $100,000 for nexus studies for inclusionary zoning, linkage fees, and transportation demand management, and $80,000 for supplementary tree planting funding. The balance of free cash before this vote is $22,160,443.13. Two, retained earnings from the water sewer enterprise in the amount of $462,000.00 on the following items. 100,000 to replenish the water sewer capital stabilization fund to $2 million current balance $1,900,000 150,000 to replace a water backhoe number 70. $82,000 for improvements to Doonan Street Booster Station, $80,000 for Oak Grove Cemetery water service design, and $50,000 for Rosina Street Small Sewer Extension. The balance of retained earnings in the water sewer enterprise before this vote is $10,953,475. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Legaucurne, Mayor. Madam Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. I do want to offer you are here if there's anything you'd like to add about the items. Owen's saying no. Noelle, Jerry, I think only if we have questions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. I got two quick questions, one for Owen, one for our schools team. Owen, and if you could come to the podium. What is the Oak Grove Cemetery water service design? What are we designing?
[Zac Bears]: And then the booster station at Doonan Street, is that just to get water up the hill?
[Zac Bears]: OK. And Noel and Jerry, just, it's probably a yes-no question, so I'm sorry to make you stand up for it, but both of these items, the network switches and wireless access, are these both, is the mini-split thing about the heat in the network rooms? Yes. OK. And then how much is the network switches and wireless access points, that's a little different?
[Zac Bears]: Great. If you could, and I don't expect you guys to answer this, if you could get back to us just with an understanding of How will this make more spaces at the schools more available for the use for hybrid meetings? We had a hybrid meeting at the Andrews a few weeks ago, and the internet just wasn't up to snuff. We couldn't really keep the people on Zoom, and it was kind of an issue. So if you could just get back to us on that.
[Zac Bears]: But that would be great if more of the spaces were available for use for hybrid meetings, because we're pretty short on that right now.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, guys. Thank you. Any more questions from members of the Council on these two requests? Any comment from members of the public on this paper?
[Zac Bears]: On the question, we had the motion from Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Seeing no further public comment in person or on Zoom, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in favor of the negative, the motion passes. We have two ordinances eligible for third reading, flood ordinance and parking ordinance. Motion to take papers 25067 and 25078 off the table. Second by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? opposed motion passes to 5067 amendments to the flood ordinance chapter 46 article two in City Council April 29 2025 approved first reading advertised May 29 2025 Medford transcript and several journal in Council June 10 2025 eligible for third reading on the motion to approve for third reading by Vice President Collins seconded by Councilor Tseng this is the flood ordinance amendments.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. 25078, amendments to the parking ordinance, chapter 78, article 3. Motion by Councilor Tseng? President Bears? to approve for third reading, seconded by Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes and the ordinance is ordained. Public participation to participate outside of Zoom, email ahertobeesatmenford-ma.gov. Do we have any further public participation?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion either in person or on Zoom for public participation? Seeing none in the chambers and no hands on Zoom, is there a motion on the floor? On the motion adjourned by Councilor Callahan, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Callahan. Thank you, Director Riggi. I was wondering, you know, I think something that would be useful as part of this is, you know, a spreadsheet that we can make available on the city website, just listing, you know, address, name, assessed value, and then any other kind of pertinent data for all of our city-owned buildings and as well as our city-owned properties in general. I think just having that inventory piece is really helpful. I'm sure you have a version of that that you use in your day-to-day already. But that's, I think that's a key first step and, you know, being able to put in your assessment on the condition of those properties and buildings, I think is really valuable. And then we can move to this kind of bigger question, you know, what, what is it going to take to restore or renovate or maintain or replace buildings given their condition and their, their life cycle? And, and I wonder, you know, I think, you know, going to the house doctors is certainly one option. And if they're able to do, I'm sure the bathroom project was relatively detailed work because, you know, we're planning to actually specifically install and replace bathrooms in the building. I'm wondering if, you know, a slightly more bird's eye view might be more affordable than that detailed work. But also I think it might be worth considering if, if we're seeing a very high estimate from the house doctors or something else, maybe going out to bid on something like this, or also maybe doing something similar to what DPW has done with the roads and sidewalk assessment and the water and sewer assessment, where we had that done and presented to us to inform the long-term financial plan of those capital assets. Just some thought that I'm also just wondering if you could talk a little bit more about, you know, where you started when you came in versus what resources and materials you've been able to develop up to this point. And then maybe as well just talk a little bit more about what you would be looking for in an assessment like what we're talking about. So I know those are pretty general questions, but I just think going through that in a little bit more detail would be helpful for everybody involved to hear. So thank you in advance for humoring me on that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, I'm directory and one other question I had is just as relates to not just the buildings but the non building properties, you know, parks to the own lots that are unused. Do you have any sort of engagement around that.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Yeah, I think it might be worth us also maybe engaging some of our DPW folks and maybe even planning office folks just to make sure that those those capital assets are included too. I mean, it really, I think that the, I'm not necessarily saying you, but, you know, for the council to engage those folks. You know, now that we have the road and sidewalk assessment and we have water and sewer, and we have you on board with our buildings, I think we just need to make sure that that fourth piece of what we own doesn't get left out in the long run. You know, our parks and the non-building structures on them, as well as just a full full catalog of, um, city owned lots around around the city that maybe aren't even being used for really anything right now. Or can't be used for anything in the long run.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to keep the paper in committee and adjourn. Second.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just two comments on this. One, on that Canal and Arlington area, I just think that the area that's bounded by Canal Street, Arlington, Boston M and the river, so not just the triangle area that's NR3, but also that other area, Um, I think it's worth looking at that being at our start. Yeah. And our 3 as well. Um, right there. Yeah, just because again, the access issues, the river question and the recent. Uh, less than recent now, but the fire. Back there, it's just a really tough area. Um, it shouldn't have been built out like that. So I think even the Boston parcels. We should look at, um. the district on that. So that's just one comment. And the other one is just on PDDs. I know we'll probably come back to that, but there are two PDDs in this district area. So what's currently a UR2 at Waukling Court. So this area right nestled up next to the train tracks around that makes use 2B. It's that the UR2 to the northeast of that. That's a PDD a little bit to your right. a little further over by the Whole Foods, the other side of the river. Yeah, so that district there, that's with the big circle in the middle, that should be the PDD. I can't remember which number PDD, but that should be one of the approved PDDs. And then also 100 Winchester Street, which is way down towards the bottom of the map, right near Broadway. We just need to make sure to include that PDD as well. So those are my two comments. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I totally forgot those were overlays of that base districts. Thank you for mentioning that.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, no. Yeah, so you see, I mean, my suggestion, for simplicity's sake and given the possibilities of what could happen, would be that those UR1s, you know, we have the, see that Canal Street kind of comes down and then merges with Arlington Street. And everything we have between the tracks and canal and the river on the right side of that is NR3. And then we have some of these weird parcels at the very end of Canal Street, Um, that those, those definitely I don't think should be in the corridor and called. And you are 1, I think those should align. And honestly, I also think that, um, you know, it might be worth taking kind of what. For lack of a better term, this left triangle here. The entire thing, including the Boston fronting parcels. And leave that in our 3 as well, um, because it's just a strange area and. You know. Maybe the Boston Ave parcels from an access perspective are different, but just knowing some of the details of what happened around there, it's just a difficult area. So maybe for simplicity's sake, everything within that triangle being an R3 would make sense, but certainly those two kind of back parcels that are more abutting on Canal than are abutting on Boston Ave, And then I think this stuff on Arlington that's technically in the residential district but is labeled you are one kind of at the, for lack of a better term like the north angle of that triangle that you have back, you have lots of budding in their backside on Canal Street. a little more careful about that whole area. I'm not talking about anything on the other side of Boston Ave. That makes sense because of what's built there now.
[Zac Bears]: That's great.
[Zac Bears]: The biggest concern I have is with anything that is nearly abutting or directly abutting that strange part of Canal Street that's basically a very tiny dead end street.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Just to Councilor Leming's point, I think that area, there's a lot of strange mix of commercial and industrial in that area where Codding Ave is and on that block. Director Hunt can correct me if I'm wrong, but looking at the just looking at the interactive map, I believe that's a city owned parking lot. And I think it was, it used to be different. It was changed when the orientation of the streets were changed there to create the right angle intersection. And I think, you know, that would be a really interesting opportunity for a public private partnership. to adjust and change kind of that whole block potentially, given that so much of it is just underutilized, you know, empty lots or single story commercial. And I think in general just talking about especially the Main Street area, the zoning, it's one of the places where the existing zoning is really not reflective of the built environment in so many ways. There's so much functionally mixed use, you know, structures and uses all up and down Main Street and Medford Street, where you have these, you know, two or three-story buildings and some even very tall three-story buildings that have large, you know, floor heights. that are completely made non-conforming by the zoning that was passed after they were built. So I think it's a good opportunity with this zoning to change and get the zoning back to what is actually there and hopefully some more as well. So I see that area as a particular area of potential improvement.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry about that, I had a mouse issue. My computer mouse, I should say. I just had one, I guess it's kind of going to what Kit was saying. So on these commercial nodes and then the ACUs and how they interrelate is the next step for us to discuss this at a future meeting and look at kind of a more specific proposal for the site-specific overlay.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I appreciate that. And I just want to put out there maybe it might be worth taking a little bit of extra time on this one. Not so much extra time as in more thought, I think we've gotten a lot of good work up to this point, and maybe putting a pin in this specific thing for a month or maybe after June 30, just given how much else we're working on, I think might be something we should consider. So I just wanted to put that out there.
[Zac Bears]: I was going to make some motions if there's anything else you'd like to work on.
[Zac Bears]: Nevermind, I was gonna say what Alicia said.
[Zac Bears]: I move to keep the paper and proposals in committee and adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: We're just waiting for the microphone.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we're gonna start the meeting. We're gonna take the role. I'm gonna read the resolution, and then we'll turn it over to you all. City Council 10th regular meeting may 27 2025 is called to order Mr. Clerk, please call the role.
[Zac Bears]: Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. 25089 offered by Councilor Tseng. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate the Medford High School Orchestra and the Medford Middle School String Ensemble on winning gold medals at the prestigious Massachusetts Instrumental and Chorus Conductors Association Concert Festival. Be it further resolved that the Medford City Council offer commendations to the Medford High School Orchestra and invite them to perform at this meeting. The further resolve of the member city council made the public to the school committees June 9 meeting where the Medford middle school string ensemble will perform and receive commendations Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Thank you so much. We'd love to hear more. I'm going to introduce Councilor Tseng up here to read off the student names and folks can come through. We'll come down here and we'll shake everyone's hand as they come through and then we'll take a photo with you. But do you have more music first? Is there any more music to be played or? Is that the only song? Okay. I don't want to put you on the spot. Everyone just looks very ready. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: You need these. Oh, you're gonna have to chase it. All right, thank you everyone. Much appreciated. All right, on the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve seconded by seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the role.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng, President Bears yes have the affirmative, none of the negative emotion passes. The motion of Council, I'm going to take the paper under suspension, seconded by Councilor Tseng, let's please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean from the negative emotion passes so we'll take 25092, and 25039. 25092 offered under suspension by Council Leming, resolution for the City of Medford to commemorate those who gave their lives in service to their country this Memorial Day, whereas Medford is home to many veterans and as well as their families and descendants who dutifully served their country throughout its history, whereas Medford is honored to be the final resting place of many men and women who gave their lives in military conflicts, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Desert Storm, and Operation Enduring Freedom. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council commemorate Memorial Day to honor our veterans and all those who support them. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Councilor Tseng and then Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President Collins Yes, thank you, Councilmember for putting this resolution forward. and for representing the council and thank you to our veteran services office and the mayor and her team and all of the volunteers from post 45 and everyone else who makes what happened yesterday. Kevin, I could, the band, I could go on and on and on. That event doesn't happen without a lot of people. And, you know, in my family, I mean, I have a cousin right now who's in the Air Force, but really the when I think about the sacrifice that people make. In my family, those sacrifices were in the World Wars, in World War I and World War II. And I think often on Memorial Day about Gettysburg Address. And I'm also very much drawn in this moment to Why we asked people to make sacrifices and what were they sacrificing their lives for. And, you know, Franklin Roosevelt speech in 1940 before the war about. building the arsenal of democracy to fight fascism stands with me in a very strong way. It has for a long time, but especially now, so many people gave their lives to fight fascism and far right extremism and genocide and these things that are just inhuman. We need to honor that memory. So thank you for putting this resolution on on the motion of Council I mean to approve second by Councilor Collins was to please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: fiscal year 2026 budget submission submitted by Mayor Brando current. May 22 2025 to the Honorable President members of the Medford City Council fiscal year 26 budget submissions dear President Bears and the members of the City Council, pursuant to Massachusetts general law chapter 44 section 32, I respectfully request and recommend the city council approve the proposed fiscal year 2026 general fund budget and water and sewer enterprise fund budget the total submitted appropriation for all departments including schools over the board for both the general fund and enterprise fund. is $235,093,352. For the general fund, we have the assessing department $644,812, legislative $307,359, executive $690,388, finance $880,135, Treasury 780,059 Law 525,228 Information Technology 360,257 City Clerk 408,686 Elections 385,466 Licensing Commission $5,800. Conservation Commission $7,500. Planning Development and Sustainability $917,163. Community Development Board $10,100. Zoning Board of Appeals $12,500. Historic District Commission $5,000. Historical Commission $35,000. Medford Community Media $215,061. Hormel Commission $5,400. Bicycle Commission, 1500. Building Department, 1,057,806. Electrical Department, 752,094. Facilities Department, 2,098,129. Police Department, 15,177,397. Traffic Supervisors, 370,500. Traffic Commission $30,500. Fire Department $15,802,494. Civil Defense $9,840. Parking Enforcement $1,059,740. Recreation Department $641,373. Medford Public Library $2,231,939. Department of Public Works Highway Division $13,949,161. Department of Public Works Cemetery Division $1,071,342. Department of Public Works Parks Division $964,765. Department of Public Works Engineering Division $719,082. Department of Public Works Forestry Division $624,615. Department of Health, $955,579. Council on Aging, $210,057. Department of Human Resources, $320,493. Department of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, $129,911. Department of Veterans Services, $448,716. Contractual agreements $1,000,575,000 workers compensation insurance $928,000 health insurance three health and other insurance $31,105,000. pensions $16,767,540 bonds and interest $5,060,178 education Medford public schools $85,490,000 for a total general fund proposed budget of $205,748,665. And to meet these appropriations, the sum of $205,200,573.76 to be raised and appropriated from the fiscal year 2026 tax levy and other general revenues of the city, and that $105,300 be transferred from the sale of cemetery lots, $257,756.40 be transferred from the cemetery perpetual care funds, and $185,034.84 be transferred from casino mitigation funds. Further, we have the Enterprise Fund, Water and Sewer Enterprise Budget, $26,996,930. Water and Sewer Bonds and Interests, $2,336,757. Further, that $29,333,687 be funded by anticipated revenue of the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. We're gonna let go current mayor. We'll hear from the mayor in just a moment. And just to give introduction to the process, we did hear from some of our departments earlier tonight, as well as the Metro Public Schools. We have had six preliminary budget meetings going over all of our departments. The council issued a series of recommendations to the mayor last month after our first preliminary budget meetings. And what will happen from here is we will take consideration of the budget. likely not finally voting at this meeting, but voting at a future meeting. There will be some other associated papers for budgeted transfers and other items. And once we complete our process, then the school committee will take back up their budget based on the allocation finally voted here by the city council. And with that, I'll introduce the mayor, Breanna Lugo-Kirk.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mayor, do we have questions for the mayor on the budget submission. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mayor. And we can talk about which ones are for the 10th and which ones are for the 24th. So, yes, we don't make you do them all in two weeks. Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to say one thing I for one don't think the mayor lines up with my ideology and views all that much but you know, we can still work together.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins. I'm just going to go to Vice President Collins and I'll come back to you.
[Zac Bears]: The pavement management plan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I mean, just for one person, And maybe we're just using different words. When we talk about how did we spend the money and did it go to the places we set it, but we're doing that every year. And that's, that's what the audit is right yes we talked about how should the city spend money, where should money be spent. Well, we have a conversation about that every two years and it's, we have it every year it's called the city budget and we have it every two years it's called an election. I mean, that's different, you know, people disagree with how the mayor's making decisions about, and I disagree with you often, and all of us do, how to spend money. Then you have to put someone else in the office to make different decisions I mean that's just say that's an audit that's not. That's I just think we're using different words to talk about what decision making is about. So that's just my opinion. And I appreciate that we are a little more clear on the differences of what we're talking about now. Is there anything else you'd like to add or the chief of staff.
[Zac Bears]: Well, we're gonna go to any public participation. Well, first I need a motion. Is there a motion on the floor, Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to table the paper to June 10th, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Is there any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public either in person or on zoom about the city budget proposal for fiscal year 2026 income to the podium on in person or raise your hand on zoom. Seeing no further discussion on the motion of Vice President Collins to table the budget to June 10 seconded by Councilor Sagan. Mr. Clerk please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Actually looks like we've lost Councilor Callahan so all those in favor. Opposed. Motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: So the budget will be tabled to June 10th but we'll pick it up for further discussion. The regular order of business records the records of the meeting of May 13 2025 for past Councilor Scarpelli Councilor Scarpelli, how did you find those records. On the motion of Councilor Scott probably to approve the record seconded by seconded by Vice President Collins, all those in favor. Passes reports of committees 24033 offered by Vice President Collins planning and permitting committee may 14 2025.
[Zac Bears]: I oppose motion passes. 2-5-0-6-9 offered by Councilor Callahan, Public Works and Facilities Committee, May 20, 2025. Report to follow. This is a meeting on the Chevalier Theatre. Is there a motion on the floor? On the motion approved by Councilor Tseng, seconded by?
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 25039 offered by President Bears committee of the whole May 2020 2025 report to follow this was one of our preliminary budget meetings we discussed the proposed budgets for several departments. Is there a motion on the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng seconded by seconded by Councilors are all those in favor. Opposed motion passes. 25 or three nine offered by President Bears can be the whole May 21 2025 report to follow. This was again another preliminary budget meeting we discussed the budgets for several departments, is there a motion, motion to approve by Councilor Collins seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. Opposed motion passes hearings 25 or three six petition to amend the special permit to 82 mystic Avenue. This is the clear channel billboard. And they have once again asked for a continuance. So I'm going to reopen the public hearing. Public hearing is now open. Is there a motion? On the motion to continue to our next regular meeting by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Public hearing is closed until June 10th. PB, David Ensign — He, Him, His): hearings public hearings 25044 public hearing proposed amendments the men for zoning ordinance chapter 94 residential districts, these, this is the residential districts. PB, David Ensign — He, Him, His.: : proposal. In the zoning updates project, the community development board has not yet reported out recommendations to the council. So we need to open the public hearing because it was duly noticed and submitted, but we do not have the recommendations from the community development board yet and their next public hearing on the residential districts proposal will be on June 4th. So I'm declaring the public hearing open. Is there a motion? On the motion to continue to the June 10th regular meeting by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. That hearing is continued to June 10th. Petitions, presentations, and similar papers. 25070 petition for a grant of location, National Grid, Gas Main, Washington Street, Washington Place, Cross Street. And we have the proponent, a representative proponent, here to present on the grant of location. Diana, I think you have some of the worst luck with our long meetings of anyone, but welcome. Well, that's true. You did get to see the orchestra, and that's a rare gift. But you're always here on budget night for some reason. 25070, we have the grant of location. Let me just get it out in front of me. One second here. So, we have 25 070 petition for a grant of location, National Grid, North and Massachusetts proposed installation of a new gas main in Washington Street Washington place and cross street. You're hereby notified but by order them in for the city council at the city council will hold the public hearing and the Howard up all the chambers at Medford City Hall, 85 George B has to drive and via zoom on Tuesday May 27 at 7pm, a link to be posted no later than Friday May 23 2025 on a petition by the Massachusetts electrical company DBA National Grid for permission to install a new gas main including necessary standing and protecting fixtures, located at Washington Street Washington place and cross street. The following started the engineering division recommends the grant that this grant of location be approved with the following conditions. One, the grant location is limited to approximately 72 feet of 12 inch gas main as depicted on the plan to before starting work the contractor should notify dig safe dig safe and shall obtain all applicable permits from the engineering division. The project must obtain a trench permit pursuant to section 74 141 of the city ordinances prior to commencing work. Three no other utility structures conduits duck banks pipes or any other appurtenances are adversely impacted national grid shall assure ensure that all sewer water and drain lines are marked for any excavation for. The project site must be swept after installation or daily and shall be kept free of debris for the duration of the installation. Five, at least 72 hours prior to the start of the project, National Grid must coordinate and better communications with the Director of Communications and submit any required information that may be requested to effectively inform the public. Approved, City Engineer. So with that, we'll hear a presentation from the proponent and then I will open the public hearing And we also have the engineer on zoom, if you would like to add anything after we hear from the proponents so go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Engineer we're telling do you have anything you'd like to add.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, with that, I will open the public hearing to anyone. Well, actually, do councillors have any questions? Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Your neighborhood's getting safer. All right, well, if the councilors don't have any other questions, I will open the public hearing. public hearing is open. If there's anyone who'd like to speak in favor and opposition or otherwise on the project. You want to go first, Diana?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone else either in person or on zoom who would like to speak in the public hearing on this project? You can either come to the podium in person or raise your hand on zoom. Seeing none, I will declare the public hearing closed. Is there a motion? Councilor Scarpelli has made a motion to approve. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro and that would be approved with the conditions. Approved with the conditions as defined by the city engineer. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and have a great evening. Great. 25071, petition for a grant of location, National Grid 401, Boston Avenue. We have here. Petition for grant of location, National Grid, North Andover, Massachusetts, proposed relocation of five poles near 401 Boston Avenue. We're hereby notified that by order of the Medford City Council, the Medford City Council will hold a public hearing in the Howard F. Alton Chambers at Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, and via Zoom on Tuesday, May 27th at 7 p.m. A link to be posted no later than Friday, May 23rd, 2025, on a petition by the Massachusetts Electrical Company, DBA National Grid, for permission to relocate five existing poles on 401 Boston Ave. The following five poles are referred to in Plan No. JO-31061167-401B to relocate the five poles. The Engineering Division recommends that this grant of location be approved with the following conditions. One, the grant of location is limited to relocating five joint-owned utility poles located within the cement concrete sidewalk near 401 Boston Avenue and labeled P3317. P3318, P3319, P3320, and P3321 as depicted on the sketch. Before starting work, the contractor shall notify DIGSAFE and obtain all applicable permits from the Engineering Division. The project must obtain a public right-of-way occupancy PRO permit pursuant to Section 74141 of the City Ordinances prior to commencing work. No other utility structures, conduits, duct banks, pipes, or any other appurtenances are adversely impacted. National grid shall ensure that all sewer water and drain lines are marked prior to any excavation. Four, placement of the joint owned utility hole must provide at least 36 inch clearance of accessible travel path around the structure in accordance with ADA regulations and city standards. Five, temporary sidewalk restoration shall be done at the time of installation and in consultation with the engineering division per the requirements of an approved PRO permit. Any asphalt sidewalk damage during this work must be replaced in kind and cleanly cut along the edges. Six, the project site must be swept after installation or daily and shall be kept free of debris for the duration of the installation. Seven, Boston Avenue is a heavily traveled roadway and requires a mandatory police detail to perform this work the engineering division recommends the applicant consult with Metro Police Department traffic sergeants prior to scheduling this work. Since work hours may be restricted to outside normal operations, eight. At least 72 hours before the prior to the start of the project National Grid must coordinate the butter communications with the Director of Communications and submit any required information that may be requested to effectively inform the public. Approved Steve Randazzo, Superintendent of Wires. Approved City Engineer Owen Wartella. Do we have a representative of National Grid here to speak to this project?
[Zac Bears]: If there's anything you want to add to talk about the project, thanks for being here through our meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just if you want to describe the project. And if you could just speak into the microphone. Thank you. And provide your name and address.
[Zac Bears]: Great, we do have the engineer here. If you have anything you want to add on, you should be able to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you, Councilor Scarpelli, thank you, Engineer Wirtala. Are there any other questions by members of the council? Seeing none, I'm going to open the public hearing. Public hearing is open to anyone who would like to speak in favor, in opposition, or otherwise register a comment of any kind on this project. If you would like to comment, register your support. National Grid support.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I see two folks here. I'll recognize Rocco DiRico. Rocco, just your name and address for the record, and if you could provide your comment.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Jeremy Martin. Jeremy, name and address for the record, and please register your comment on this grant of location.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Jeremy. Is there any further comment on this item? Seeing none, I'm declaring this public hearing closed. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve with the conditions of the city engineer, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative what happens the motion passes Thank you so much. Thanks for sharing with us. Fun way to spend a Tuesday night. Motions, orders, and resolutions. 25-075 offered by Councilor Leming, whereas veterans are often in need of food, transportation, and heat expenses, and whereas the good people of Medford may like to contribute to this cause, and whereas Medford area has provisions for allowing voluntary donations to the police and fire department on our excise tax bills. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we adopt the provisions of Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 60, Section 3F, which allows municipalities to add a section for voluntary donations on excise tax bills that will go towards a fund for in need residents Councilor by me.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Council I'm going to approve this adoption of Massachusetts general law chapter 60 section three F, second about second by Councilor Tseng, since this is an adoption of state law.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins Council is our council let me Councilor Scarpelli Councilor Tseng, President Bears, yes, six affirmative what happens the motion passes, 2005 086 offered by Vice President Collins proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance accessory dwelling units for referral to the Community Development Board. This is reported out of the planning and permitting committee, and the procedural next step is for us to refer to Community Development Board. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you on the motion of cancer cancer for Community Development Board seconded by seconded by Council is our Councilor Scarborough.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Yeah, we adopted all of the CDB recommendations for Mr. Green score, the phase one changes and all but one CDB recommendation for the Salem Street neighborhood quarter district. On the motion, all those in favor. Opposed motion passes. 25087 offered by Councilor Collins, 2024 Community Control Republic Surveillance Annual Report. One second here. Be it resolved that the City Council discuss and approve the 2024 Community Control Republic Surveillance Annual Report pursuant to Section 50 Article 3 Community Control Republic Surveillance Ordinance. One question I have here before we get started, Vice President Collins, is this also going to constitute approval of the LPR use policy that is included here? The license plate reader use policy was included in this packet from the parking department. Does approval of the annual report also constitute approval of the license plate reader policy? Okay. I might want us to take two votes. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve the B paper to approve the LPR policy, we'll take that first. Is there any further discussion on the approval of the license plate reader policy?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion to approve the license plate reader report by Vice President Collins, seconded by Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion. All those in favor. Opposed motion passes on the main paper to approve the annual surveillance report is our motion. Motion approved by Vice President Collins seconded by Council is our all those in favor. Opposed motion passes 25088 offered by Council is our resolution requiring monthly police chief report on ice activity in Medford Council is our.
[Zac Bears]: I motion to table by Council is our second by Councilor Tseng the motion is a debatable all those in favor. Opposed. Motion passes and that is tabled. Communications from the mayor, 25085, appropriation of free cash, parking or kiosk replacement, and so remediation at 448 High Street. I neglected to mention this as part of the committee report. We did discuss this last Wednesday at our committee meeting, and we heard from our parking director and our city engineer on this. Councilor Collins. One second, just so I read it into the record. free cash dear President barriers and city councilors may 15 2025 I respect the request and recommend that your body approves following a free cash appropriation the amount of $150,859 and 89 cents. on the following, sorry, 98 cents on the following. $92,859.98 for replacement of the remaining Flowbird parking kiosks to IPS parking kiosks and 58,000 for the continuation of slow remediation services at 448 High Street. The balance of free cash before this vote is $22,311,303.11. Respectfully submitted, Brianna Lingo, current mayor. On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve the appropriation, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Is there any further discussion? seeing even the city engineer is shaking his head so he's he's all set. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, the affirmative. What happens to the motion passes, 25090 offered by memory and legal current. proposed wage adjustment for non-union personnel, dear president bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend the city council approve the following amendment to the revised ordinances chapter 66 entitled personnel, article two entitled reserve the city's classification and compensation plan formally included as article two section 66 dash 31 through 66 dash 40 by adopting the following changes. Non-union personnel effective July 1, 2025 increase the base salary of all non-union titles by 2%. Thank you for this kind of attention to this matter, thank you for your kind attention to this matter respectfully submitted Brianna Lego current mayor, Mr. Clark, could you make Dr. Cushing, and Director Crowley co host of this meeting, please. Dr. Cushing is not on this paper but the next paper. But Director Crowley is on this one so I want to make sure that she can speak to the paper.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, director Crowley, if you could make a presentation on this paper, anything you'd like to add.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Crowley. Is there a motion? A motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Councilor
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion to approve for first reading by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, any further discussion? Seeing no further discussion by members of the council, no hands on Zoom, no one in the chamber. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng President Bears, yes, five of the affirmative, one of the negative one absent the motion passes and this is ordained for first there's approved for first reading. 091 submitted by Mary brain on the curtain authorization of a five year contract for Rico USA copy machines and printers. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend the City Council approve the following five-year contract with Ricoh USA Inc. for the lease of copy machines and a print technology solution in accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 30b, Section 12, which requires City Council approval for a contract that exceeds three years. Please see the attached for an outline of the scope of the agreement for the School Department. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Brianna Lovego Kern, Mayor. And I will recognize Dr. Cushing, our Assistant Superintendent of operations and innovation, is that right? Did I get it right?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anything you'd like to add on this?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Assistant Superintendent Cushing. Is there any further discussion or questions by members of the council for Dr. Cushing? Seeing none, is there a motion? on the motion to approve by Vice President Colin seconded by seconded by Councilor Tseng Mr. Clerk, please call the room.
[Zac Bears]: 561 absent the motion passes Thank you Dr. fishing. Move to public participation and for school that Councilor Tseng no that she is not available, is there a motion to postpone that paper to the next regular meeting on the motion of Councilors saying seconded by Councilors are all those in favor. Opposed motion passes. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in public participation, either in person or on zoom. Sure, give me one second to get the timer going. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Good to go to Zoom. I have Mr. Castagnani on Zoom. Name and address for the record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Hi, Andy, you have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, Mr. Cassidy. Kevin Foley has been hired to serve as the city solicitor.
[Zac Bears]: The physical office, I guess it's the law department office on the second floor.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anything else you'd like to comment on?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much, Andy. Have a good night.
[Zac Bears]: Is there anyone else who would like to comment in public participation? Seeing no one at the podium and no hands on zoom. Is there a motion on the floor on the motion adjourned by Councilor Tseng seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor. Opposed motion passes, and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee of the whole May 27 2025 is called to order Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: There'll be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the whole at 5.30pm in the city council chamber second floor Medford City Hall, 85 George P has to drive meant for Massachusetts and via zoom action discussion items 25039 annual budget process for fiscal year 2026 preliminary budget meeting number six. Tonight we have the Metro police. the Metro Public Schools and our Department of Public Works. And we're going to start with the police department. Sorry, Tim. There's really no winning. Thank you. I'll recognize the chief of staff. And if you could just introduce the team and then we'll get going.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, I'm just going to read quickly from the budget and then I'm going to kind of give you three general framing questions and then we'll go to questions from councillors after your presentation. So tonight we have the Medford Police Department budget and for fiscal 25, this is a lot of line items, it's going to take me a minute to find it. Fiscal 25, we had a $14,632,263 and proposed for fiscal 26 $15,177,397 for an increase of $545,134. Most of these changes are in fixed cost growth, highlighting $119,000 for step increases in promotion. and promotions, about $90,000 in overtime, $47,000 for differential, $50,000 in fringe, $62,000 in holiday pay, and then various inflationary costs. And we have new expenses, $25,000 for legal costs, $5,000 for training. So with that, the three questions are just tell me more about that budget, what you want to talk about, talk a bit about your highlights for fiscal 25 for the past year, goals for next year, and then let us know something that might not be in the budget this year that you'd like to see included in the future.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thanks, Captain.
[Zac Bears]: Gonna go to Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Leme.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any more questions from members of the council? Seeing that I have a few, and then we're going to quickly after I'm done go through traffic commission and traffic supervisors if that's okay it's, those will be easy. And then, if there's members of the public who want to comment we'll take after that. Just a couple of quick things. there's potentially 17 slots between now and February, 2026 in the Academy. And that's what would get us up close to that 107 number, even with a few retirements. Just wanna get that right.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, okay. And it sounds like one of the problems was that lists were short, and then if people weren't passing everything, right, then they weren't eligible and then this hybrid model has created bigger lists, but it also means that other communities are we've seen people, unfortunately, they cannot do the run.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Thank you for that. A couple other things on the mental health grant, is that every year it comes up or does it's every year? That's an annual. And it's a state grant, right? Yes. Department of Mental Health.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And so in the long term, we might want to look at, given the situation, if the state is in a funding crunch, we might want to bring that in house so that we can keep it going if the grant dries up.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, important for us to keep in mind. The legal costs item that new 25,000, it just says new 25,000 for legal costs. Could you go into a little bit more what that might go?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thanks. But I go one that's maybe a little harder and then I think one that tells a really good story. So, you know, take it even with what's going on right now, certainly ice but other federal agencies. Could you talk a little bit about how it seems to me, and this is an opinion, but I think it's shared by a lot of people in the city. that there's some element of intimidation coming in from some agencies that are coming into the city. They're not wearing, they're not identifying themselves. Sometimes they're wearing masks. Sometimes they're, you know, we've seen in other neighboring communities, smashing a car window to get into a car, things like that. How are you guys working through being able to know when they're coming here, you know, and you have to partner with them on some things. a big criminal racket and something going on in the city, we'd want local police and the FBI to be working together, right? But there's other times where it seems now that federal law enforcement is being used as an instrument of intimidation. And I'm wondering how you guys are working through that to understand when it makes sense to work together and when you might say, ask more questions and say, well, what's going on here and why are we doing this?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Yeah, I guess I mean, like, You know, we had an incident over in Haines Square, two or three weeks ago. Residents said, there's these people in my community, they're wearing masks. I don't know who they are. I don't feel safe. What do we do? How are we trying to engage with that situation, understanding there are limits on what you guys can do, but also understanding that the community, we're here to keep people safe.
[Zac Bears]: I received two or three calls myself about it. Captain Camino.
[Zac Bears]: I'm sorry.
[Zac Bears]: You tell them. If someone comes in, you say, hey, this is in our system. Right.
[Zac Bears]: And that's why I was kind of- And it might be the unmarked vehicle maybe is what I'm trying to- It's the whole perception of the unmarked vehicle.
[Zac Bears]: They do have some sort of, I know ICE has some sort of uniform division, so maybe that's what they should, but that's- And we've seen a few, I've seen a lot of photos with the vest and the police, ICE or police, FBI or whatever, but I've also seen some with maybe just the badge, nothing on the back. unmarked vehicle, the mask.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I really appreciate the answer and giving the details of how it works. And I understand it's difficult to be in the middle of stuff like this. So I appreciate it. And mostly I'm, it seems like all of this might make things even harder to discern.
[Zac Bears]: Definitely. No, and I appreciate you really going through the details on that. And I think the The thing for me is that safety element right whether it's immigrants who don't feel safe for people in general, in the community who see something and think is this safe is this not safe is this legitimate is this, you know, many of these immigrants are being misinformed and how the legal process works. Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I appreciate that. And I think that that's the ultimate question I'm trying to get at is how do we get people the best information we can get them?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I know there's a couple of Paul Caminos in the city, too. Luckily, they seem to know each other. Fortunately, the other one is a good guy. I know him pretty well, too. As well as you. My last thing and I think you know it's just something I, I, I know and I think it's just important to talk about and I think Captain Clemente you kind of even we're getting at it a little bit. We live in a time when crime is way down, you know, over the past 30 years since the 80s over the last 30 years you know crime has really gone down. You know, I think somewhat because of the way that the news works these days and social media and all this. A lot of people think crime is going up when it's going down and I just wanted to wonder if you guys could talk a little bit about what we've seen in the city over the last 20 30 years around safety and how safe we are I can give you an answer partial answer that number one is
[Zac Bears]: I mean, the proliferation of guns in this society is certainly worrying. And I know that you guys probably see that more directly than a lot of other people because you're interacting with them. But more I was trying to, to get to the point to remind people right and we're at the lowest homicides in this region and decades we're at the lowest. A lot of people feel unsafe. Yeah, and I'm not saying that there's no no violence and that there's no crime right now, but in general violent crime especially is significantly down compared to I'm going to say something.
[Zac Bears]: A lot of money.
[Zac Bears]: Sure.
[Zac Bears]: And I think you would find, you know, around our schools or our DPW or anyone else here tonight. You know, Cambridge has 35,000 more people. Yes. And the budgets for those departments are two, three, four times bigger than what we have here. And that's, you know, that's a bigger regional problem, but I appreciate the discussion and I appreciate you saying it right to say we live in a very safe city does not mean there's no risk. But, you know, the anxiety that's out there.
[Zac Bears]: No, I get it. All right, I have a few, I'm gonna go to Councilor Tseng, then Councilor Lazzaro, then back to Councilor Leming, and then we gotta move this along, y'all. I'll be quicker.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Anything else? That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: I think we're, I think we're going back over some ground we've already covered. Yeah, and I want to get to our DPW in our schools, because I have about 50 middle school and high school orchestra students waiting out there to play us music.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, so it is. Yeah, it sounds like the answer is yes. And we're working on it where exactly.
[Zac Bears]: And I think that's when I was talking about information, that was another piece I was saying, I think being able to, if residents have questions and concerns to be able to say, here's the information we have, here's the things we don't know and can't provide, here's what we do know. They checked in three times this week, you know, things like that. And I appreciate that. I think that's helpful too. I just really quickly, because we do have a public comment on this as well. You mind if I go over the traffic commission and the traffic supervisor budget really quickly? Great. So we have the traffic commission fiscal 25 budget $30,500 fiscal 26 proposed $30,500. So no change for the traffic commission and traffic supervisors. And these are our part time folks who are out there keeping kids safe after school crossing guards. This is another name people might know them by we have fiscal 25 budget 361,525 and fiscal 26 proposed 370,500 for a change of 7,775. Is there anything you'd like to talk about our traffic supervisors or the traffic commission, either of you guys?
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: And that's part of the non-union, because they're non-union, right? Union. Oh, they're union. So this is part of their contract. Yes. Great. Sorry about that. Thank you. All right, do we have any questions from members of the council about the Traffic Supervisors and Traffic Commission? All right, we'll go to public comment on the Police Budget, Traffic Commission and Traffic Supervisors. So anyone in the chambers who would like to speak? Seeing none, we'll go to Zoom. I'll recognize Micah Kesselman, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes. Give me one second to get the timer going.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I had two questions there. I had, are there mechanisms to guard against advocates dismissed from other police forces in the hiring process? And how are we dealing with this oversaturation of like crime in our media, social media, and how that impacts mental health for officers? And you can feel free to respond to them. I just wanted to restate them. You don't have to.
[Zac Bears]: It was when we're talking about providing mental health support and treatment for our officers, how are we talking about, you know, kind of this culture of fear that we're all living in, for lack of a better term, where we see a lot of violence on our phones and on TV and on the media that isn't really as reflective of our day-to-day experience.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks for both of you for the helpful answers, all of you. And I know also, you know, when we talk about guns, death by suicide is the most common thing that happens. You know, we see someone die on the other end of a gun as well. So appreciate you bringing that up and that we're working on it in a really seemingly, it seems like it's an intense and intensive way. Seeing no more questions or public comments, unless there's anyone who wants to raise their hand on Zoom or stand up in the chamber. Thanks, you guys.
[Zac Bears]: All right, Tim and Owen. I gotta do the schools too, so we're going over. I don't know, that's just half the budget, right?
[Zac Bears]: Jerry's got a PowerPoint, so. All right, I will go through this. Let's just go through alphabetically. If there's anything you want to talk about introduction wise at the beginning for overall departmental operations to Commissioner McGivern. I'll see the floor to you and then we can go through on each, each section of your department.
[Zac Bears]: Great, okay we can start with engineering and I'm just going to read the engineering budget sheet. Fiscal 25 budget 547,752. Fiscal 26 budget proposed 719.82 for an increase of 171,330 and we have here casino funded position, permanent employees, there's a significant fixed cost growth there, a new project manager position, and those are the main drivers. Everything else is essentially inflationary. There's a little bit of new training for GIS and a new monitor and laptop system in the conference room. So Three things I know Tim kind of went over this a little bit more, but we do have you here as our city engineer. If you want to talk anything more about the speak to those changes anymore.
[Zac Bears]: Compared to the current year or?
[Zac Bears]: And is that part of what's driving this project manager position addition as well.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. I'm just going to jump the line here really quickly. You brought up the two big things right, you guys, manage and do the design work on probably our two biggest capital assets which are all of the water and sewer pipes for everybody, and all of our streets and sidewalks. We've been doing these studies these assessments, certainly on the road we've talked a little bit about pavement condition, you've been doing something similar for water sewer. Where are we on a capital need basis? You know, it sounds like we're going to be doing a lot more now. And it sounds like on the water sewer side that there's money coming from the fee structure for the water and sewer enterprise fund to help do that.
[Zac Bears]: Roadside comes from the general fund and from state funds. So there's not as easy a way to do the revenue element of that. Could you talk a little bit more about expectations and how are we really going to start seeing an improvement in these conditions?
[Zac Bears]: So we're one time doubling stuff like that.
[Zac Bears]: You could do significantly more if the state provided that investment.
[Zac Bears]: Well, it's been going downhill for, what, 100, so.
[Zac Bears]: Great, and there's materials posted on the website as well. Yes. I'm just going to go through and read the budget lines, since we've lumped it all together. So I'm just going to do that really quickly. Cemetery, we had $1,118,050 for fiscal 25. There's a reduction to $1,071,342. That's a reduction of $46,708. I already did engineering. Forestry, we had fiscal 25, $623,989. And there's a small reduction to $618,365. There are reduced costs for arborist support and as well as some step increases and just generally some staffing funding there. Parks, we had fiscal 25, 950,578 and fiscal 26 proposed 954,765 and there's a net decrease of 2,813 there. Highway we had fiscal 25 budgeted $12,839,686. Fiscal 26 budget $13,984,161 for an increase of $1,104,000. $475. A huge chunk of this is our waste contract. It looks like it's about $9.4 million this year. And that's an increase of $700,000 from last year. And then that's all the general fund departments and then we had water and sewer, which is the enterprise fund and that's, you know, funded by the, you know, rates the water and sewer rates fiscal 26 sorry fiscal 25 total was 26,937,511. Fiscal 26 is $26,966,670 for an increase of $29,159, which from a percentage basis actually rounds down to a 0% increase. So that's the all of the budgets for our dpw. And thank you at the beginning for going over and saying this is what percentage of your total dpw is enterprise fund and then the other department.
[Zac Bears]: Great. If you could forward that to the clerk, he can distribute it to us. We can add it to the packet for this meeting online. And also I think it'd be great to put on the website.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Okay, I'm going to go to Councilor Tseng Councilors are and then Councilor Scarpelli Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: No, they always look like that. I'm no time for jokes.
[Zac Bears]: We have neither been denied nor approved.
[Zac Bears]: Is it possible that in a future federal administration, future Congress that maybe we could the grant might come back to life? Is that something you're thinking about?
[Zac Bears]: And the tune of $22 million or so the tune of $22 million.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Those are required by the union contract? internal movements. Correct. Yeah. So we had to follow the contracts to move. Yeah, people had the positions had to be available to people already working for your department. And now that all of that is complete, what remains open is now available for the public to apply for.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no further questions from members of the council, just have one for you. Could you talk a little bit more about the trash contract? It's nearly 25% of the DPW budget. It's the vast majority of certainly the general fund side of the DPW budget. It's going up very fast. Could you talk about that? And then could you talk about why some of the renegotiated the new contract, for example, why we have a fee for bulk pickup now and some of the other changes?
[Zac Bears]: You mean trash as opposed to recycling?
[Zac Bears]: that might end up being more cost effective to go in that direction?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any comments from councillors, questions from councillors or any comments from members of the public on the DPW budget? Seeing no one in the chamber and no hands raised on zoom. I thank you guys very much All right. Thank you going to our public schools. Next. We have the superintendent and finance team with us And as folks know, Metro Public Schools is a little bit different than all of our other city departments because they are governed by the school committee. We, both the mayor and the city council do not have any line item authority over the school budget. We simply can, we provide the full general fund allocation. The mayor makes a proposal and the city council could approve or reduce or reject that proposal. And given that we do have a budget book The fiscal year 25 budget so the year ending next month June 30 was 83 million, and the proposed fiscal 26 budget is 87,583,290. And is that also the allocation proposed by the mayor. I'll double check that but. Okay, so that's the request from the school committee, have they voted on that yet. So that's the voted request from the school committee for the general fund. With that, I'll turn it over to you, Madam Superintendent.
[Zac Bears]: Sounds great.
[Zac Bears]: I know there's been a very extensive many public meetings at the school committee that people can go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Jerry. Thank you, Noel. Thank you, Madam Superintendent. Appreciate the work you've done to get this down to 419,000. Obviously, that's still a number that is meaningful for staff and services for our students in our schools. So I'm hoping we can do something. I do have a question from Councilor Collins, but I did want to ask you before that. Um, are there any one time or capital items built into the proposed operating budget approved by the school committee? Um, that we could look at potentially use of one time funds for funding those.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any further questions from members of the Council? Seeing none, do we have any comments on the Medford Public Schools budget from any members of the public, either in person or on Zoom? Also seeing none, I will will continue to work with you guys sounds like we have some work on a stabilization fund creation and appropriation to make sure that we can have that available for the fiscal plan that you've drawn up. And I know that for one Councilor and I'm think I speak, you know was in our budget recommendation to the mayor, two months ago. We certainly want to see as much as possible funded the school committee recommended budget versus the allocation from the city so that's something we're going to continue to advocate for and try to see what we can do to help provide fundings to limit the reductions that you guys have to make. And I think I speak for everyone city side, we really appreciate the hard work you put into getting that gap down. So we'll continue to work on that. Is there anything else that you guys like to add, or the superintendent?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. All right, thank you. And thanks. All right, great. Just a reminder to everyone, this is the start of, well, not the start of, but we have a budget, initial proposal of the budget tonight on our agenda. We'll probably be looking at budget and finance items tonight and for both of our regular meetings on June 10th and June 24th. This is the end of our committee of the whole. Is there a motion on the, well, I'm gonna say this first. We're going to take about a five minute break, then we're going to be starting our regular meeting. I know that we have the orchestra here I want to thank everyone for waiting through our budget meetings. You are getting a live study and the pace of government but we are being diligent and we are doing our work. And so we're gonna take about a five minute break. We'll start our regular meeting. We'll hear from our award winning middle school and high school orchestra, and then we'll get to the rest of our agenda. So thank you very much. Is there a motion on the floor? On the motion to adjourn by council, let me seconded by councilor Sang. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. That's Kelly and, yes, Vice President Collins Council is our council lemon, Councilor scrub Kelly, Councilor Tseng, President Bears yes 70 affirmative no negative the motion passes, we will be moving to our regular meeting which folks should expect to start in about five minutes. Thank you and this meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee of the whole May 21 2025 is called to order Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng President Bears present five present two after the meeting is called to order, there'll be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee the whole. May 1st, 2025 at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, and via Zoom. Our action discussion items today are 25039 for the budget process, preliminary budget meeting, and 25085 submitted by the mayor in appropriation of free cash. And this is a discussion and it'll be, it could be referred to a regular meeting for final action. Just to get it out of the way, we're going to take 25085 first. This is an appropriation of free cash for parking kiosk replacement and soil remediation at 448 High Street. Dear President Bears and city councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves the following free cash appropriation in the total amount of $150,859.89 for the following, or 98 cents for the following, 92,859.98 for replacement of the remaining Flowbird parking kiosks, IPS parking kiosks, and 58,000 for the continuation of solar remediation services at 448 High Street. The balance of free cash before this vote is $22,311,303.11. Parking Director Sarah McDermott and City Engineer Owen Wartella will be available to answer any questions on the respective requests. Thank you for your kind attention to these matters. Brianne Aligo-Kern, Mayor. I'm not seeing Owen, I do see Sarah. If you guys wanna come up and present a little bit more about these requests, and maybe we can start with the parking kiosks as we await the City Engineer. And you can feel free to move that down, if helpful. And I do want to note that Councilor Collins has arrived and Councilor Leming is absent due to military service so we'll go to parking director right now.
[Zac Bears]: Great, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have any other questions from members of the council? I
[Zac Bears]: Back of the napkin, would you guess would be more expensive?
[Zac Bears]: And would those require like electrical wiring to install and
[Zac Bears]: And that's between the college intersection and Harvard Street?
[Zac Bears]: What's our compliance like in the area, especially around the T station. So are a lot of people using the kiosk like how often are we seeing people parking all day to take the T and how often are we ticketing them and. I'm just, yeah, it's just kind of a unique area of public parking and that's why I'm wondering what the best treatment might be.
[Zac Bears]: And it's unlimited. They can stay the whole day.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And, and enforcement is going up there on a daily basis.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. So my last question is kind of on a two year time horizon with the dorm project. you know, some of the use in that area is going to change. We're going to have a lot more people, probably a lot more activity. I know that Tufts is talking about significant improvements to the street. How has the kiosk project been incorporated into that? I would hate to see us buy these and then take them out, you know, in two years because of the significant design changes on the street.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And on this other side of the street as well? Correct. Okay. And so if there are changes on the other side of the street, I know that they've talked about in the sidewalk over there as well. strange to say the least. Yeah. With that weird kind of lip. I know that's going to be changed. So would we install these now and then maybe have to uninstall them and then they redesign and then we reinstall them? Is that kind of?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I guess my only thought would be, let's make sure that if there's significant changes that the reinstallation removal and reinstallation if necessary is something that tops and their contractor is responsible for. Installing them and then having to pay whatever the installation fees are in a few years if they make significant changes to locations or or the lot of the street i'm thinking actually on the track side of Boston Avenue across from the dorm that's kind of where my concerns are.
[Zac Bears]: Those are off on that side too. Correct.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions? Seeing none, we'll go to Engineer Wartella to talk about the Soil Remediation Services.
[Zac Bears]: Hey, Owen, we can hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Which lot is this again?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Do you have any questions, Councilor Callahan?
[Zac Bears]: All right. Great, thank you. Do we have any further questions for the City Engineer? Seeing none, is there a motion and it would be to refer out? A motion to refer to the regular meeting by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Thanks, Owen. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Already gotten back to work. All right. Next, we're going to take 25039 Annual Budget Process Preliminary Budget Meeting. Tonight, we're talking Assessor, Building, Clerk, Legislative, Electrical, Fire, Insurance, Pensions, Bonds, and Interests, and Recreation slash Farmhouse Stadium. We're going to take Recreation first. So we're going to go to our Rec Director, Kevin Bailey, and we will hear about what's happening in the Recreation department. So first I'm just going to read off the budget, and then we'll do Hormel next but here we have department recreation fiscal 25 budget 607,787 fiscal 26 proposed 641,373 for an increase of $33,586. As our net increase, we have some fixed cost growth. We have some step increase, stipend increase, or a stipend that's eligible for, and additional training for part-time employees. And then we also have a new expense under part-time employees for an office manager position for the department. So with that, I have a general kind of three items that I asked everyone. So first, just share, you know, any other things you'd like to talk about with the change in the budget. And then let us know kind of what your accomplishments were this year. What are some goals for the upcoming year. And finally, what are items that aren't funded in this budget that you'd like to see funded in the future.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thanks, Kevin. I'm gonna go to councilor Scarpelli then council Lazzaro. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: We have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Just a quick follow up on that. Kevin, where do we pay the electric right now? Like is that in the building? Sorry, the facilities budget or?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just a couple quick questions for myself, Kevin. You just, and you always do this, but could you just talk a little bit about how your department is funded in general? I know you get personnel money from the city but everything else comes from your program fees and outside funding can you just talk a little bit about that more. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: And how is the you said the friends has brought in some money, what about that element of it the non fee like the outside funding, what is that, how much is coming in and.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Do we have any other questions for Kevin Bailey and our recreation department? Seeing none, do we have any questions or comments from members of the public about the recreation department budget? Seeing none in person or on Zoom, thank you. Kevin, can we quickly talk about Hormel? I'm seeing Hormel Stadium or Hormel Commission, 5400 Fiscal 25, 5400 Fiscal 26. So no change, but is there anything else you'd like to say about that?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Any questions about Hormel Commission Seeing none, thank you, Kevin.
[Zac Bears]: All right, we're gonna go to the assessing department. All right, we have here assessing... No, good at the end. We have the assessing department. Fiscal year 25 budget, $589,783. Fiscal 26 budget, $644,812. fixed cost growth, keeping a part time employee on through the revaluation process some inflationary increases to supplies and services and software. And then we have a new expensive 57,000 for the state required citywide revaluation. So with that we'll go to our chief assessor. And same questions, just give us some commentary on the budget any of the changes that I mentioned your accomplishments in fiscal 25 goals for fiscal 26 and anything that's not in this budget that you think needs to be funded in the future.
[Zac Bears]: Great, do we have questions for the assessing department? Don't worry, I do. So I noticed there's a reduction in the field assessor roles. What's the impact of that gonna be?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it looks like it's going down from... Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: But there's going to be... We won't be able to catch up as much without them.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And that's essential to maximizing our new growth is essential.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. Can you explain a little bit of a difference between the annual re-evaluations and reassessments of properties and what the statewide re-evaluation is? Why are they different? What is the state mandate that's different from what we do every year?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And so that's what the state revaluation is. It's, it's the same, you're doing the same thing every year, but sometimes the state comes in to double check.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. That's super helpful, because I think might look like there's extra reevaluation or, you know, but it's the same thing and it's a double check and make sure you're following the rules and regulations that we have to follow every year and they observe you.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Last question. You know, we talked about it pretty extensively as a council. It was one of our key requests in the budget process was that we really want to consider residential exemption. with this budget, with the staffing, if we came in December and we said we're voting a residential exemption, would you be able to handle that?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Yeah, we definitely want to be able to consider that, so I think it's something we're going to need to talk about more as we move through the budget. People have questions now, so I'm going to go to Councilor Callahan, then Councilor Scarpelli, then Vice President Collins. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I think Jared's saying for the following July.
[Zac Bears]: So if we voted in December to implement a residential exemption, that would apply for the tax rate for the fiscal year starting the next July.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: They would need to work from, well, probably even starting a little earlier than that, I'm guessing, to do the prep, but certainly from December through June. Absolutely.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, I just wanted to talk a little bit more about two of the topics so can start with the new growth. You know, regardless of the type of new growth, you know, new growth has been significantly higher the past couple years than it was in the past, you know, could you go over the new growth numbers over the last few years.
[Zac Bears]: So those 2.2, 2.3 million a year numbers were mostly from your catch-up project?
[Zac Bears]: Do you have any expectations on this year?
[Zac Bears]: What do you expect from like all this aggregation of the smaller things, the nine unit building on in West Bedford Square, stuff like that?
[Zac Bears]: And they come in the next year.
[Zac Bears]: So we're gonna be in that 2 million range still or so is the estimate?
[Zac Bears]: Do we see that dropping in the next few years because of what you're talking about?
[Zac Bears]: And that two million number is historically very high for Medford over the last 10 years.
[Zac Bears]: On the, obviously, Mourning Growth is great, and I hope we get more. For the Davis Company's project on the Fells Way, I mean, that obviously they have, they've done demolition, there's construction going on. Mystic Valley hasn't started yet.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: And so do you expect, like, when would we get the full realization? Is that a year or two out?
[Zac Bears]: The next June 30 would get the other 50%, and that's even if it's occupied or not it's just the construction.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. And then on the residential exemption, basically my understanding of the way it works is you assume 7,000 homes are gonna apply for the exemption, let's say it's a 30% exemption. And what the city has to do is say, okay, we're gonna lose that much, you know, if we, which we won't, right? Like the levy doesn't come down, but that would reduce the levy by this much. So we have to have the rate be higher. And because there's a higher rate and because the exemption amount is fixed, it applies kind of a progressive curve to what is currently a flat residential rate. Is that essentially correct?
[Zac Bears]: And so if you're under the breakeven, If you're very low, if you're in a $300,000 home, I don't know that there's many left with that valuation here in Medford, you would be receiving the most benefit. And then if you're in a very, very high value residential property, even if you're one of many tenants of multi-hundred million dollar valued property, that's where the higher rate is gonna impact the most in a dollar amount.
[Zac Bears]: So it really benefits the small, small single families condos. Maybe if you have a three family that's of low value and you divided it across three units, something like that, but yeah, I don't, it's possible that three family would be under the break even, but be unlikely, very unlikely.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions. Vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any more questions for assessing? Anything else you want to add, Jerry? Nothing else. All right. We're good. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Go to the building department. We have the building commissioner with us, Scott Vandewall. Building Department Fiscal 25 Budget $1,031,543. Fiscal 26 Proposed $1,057,806 for an increase of $26,263. Most of this in the fixed cost growth, phone contracts, postage spending, clerical contracting, COLA increases, and the copier lease, and two new citizen-served licenses under new expenses. And my three questions for you are the same as everyone else just if there's anything else you'd like to add around the change to your budget. What were your accomplishments this year goals for next year, and what is something that you'd like to see funded in the future that wasn't funded in this budget. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Board is not lighting up. I have a couple of questions for you. We have been working on this new, well, we have a request out to departments around the new fee schedule. Have you been able to take a look at your fees and fines and make recommendations?
[Zac Bears]: Great. All right. We'll take those recommendations. We'll ask them, ask the chief of staff for them, and we'll see if we can work on updating some of those fee amounts to get us more into a reasonable range. Vice President Collins, do you have a follow up on that? Okay, well, I'll just go to you and then I'll come back to my questions.
[Zac Bears]: Speaking of busy, permit and inspection times. How do we do on that? Are we, you know, how long does it take on average to get an inspector out to a site after they've, you know, how does our time put compared to other communities? Are we longer, shorter?
[Zac Bears]: How long on average would you say from a filing of a permit to a determination you know how long does that take?
[Zac Bears]: And is that done electronically or on paper at this point?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think the consistent clear and equitable experience that you know, any applicant receives is essential. And so, and speedy as best as we can do it. Last question, leaf blower ordinance. I know it's new. I know we're working on it. The ordinance does require large commercial operators to submit management plans and municipal operators as well. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And how do we get enforcement on that? Or what, what reason, you know, what does your office doing to, to get those plans submitted and to, and what does enforcement look like if someone calls and says that someone's violated?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah. And I think just one, you know, I'm sure you're doing it. But If we could work with the communications team to get something up on the city website that just kind of explains what you're talking about. Is the citizen serve module just going to be internal? Or are you going to ask people to submit their plans through that module, we're going to treat it much like we do with the outdoor dining licenses.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah. And I think something on the website that just is, you know, here's if you're an operator who needs to submit a plan, here's the link, here's some of that. If you're a resident who feels that the ordinance is being violated, this is the process noting maybe some of the limitations of the enforcement, you know, just so that there's kind of a clear landing page for people who have questions and concerns about this, both if they're an operator or a resident who wants a little peace and quiet during the time the ordinance says they should have some Awesome. Thank you on that. I appreciate the answer. Council is our Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah. And I think, you know, even just pointing people in that direction, making sure there's a, category and see click fix for the specific issue. Those kinds of kind of small nudge guidance for folks will help because I'm sure a lot of people are complaining generally, but maybe not. We're not hearing about it. They're just complaining in their kitchen or something. Thank you for that. Any further questions for the building department? Seeing none. Thank you. Commissioner. All right, we'll go now to clerk and legislative. We do have our assistant city clerk with us. We may go back and forth with our city clerk who's sitting beside me, but we will start with the city clerk's office and then we can do legislative. We have fiscal 25 budgeted 40, 406,364, fiscal 26 budgeted 408,686 and increase of 2,322. We have in here that this is all fixed cost growth. We have contract increases for the staff. We have a printer and copier contract increase, increase for book binding, inflationary costs in office supplies, increase for clerk conferences and training, and an increase for some of our subscriptions that we use for licenses and records. So with that, turn it over to our Assistant City Clerk and same three questions as for everybody else. Feel free to go into the budget more.
[Zac Bears]: I'll turn it over to our City Clerk and then our Assistant City Clerk. But just talking generally, any additional comments you want to make on the change to the budget, then accomplishments this year, goals for next year, and what's an item that's not funded that you'd like to see funded in the future. So we'll start with the City Clerk. who will then go back to being the clerk of the council.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have any questions for the clerk or the assistant city clerk? I actually don't have any myself on the clerk's budget. It's pretty self-explanatory.
[Zac Bears]: Well, that makes sense. I think as you gear up and get everything on there this year, then you'll be running those. So it makes sense when everyone's using them that, and the reporting seemed to be a great benefit in general. Yeah. Thanks for adding that and we'll be on the lookout for that in the next budget. All right, legislative, we have a legislative fiscal 25 312 689 fiscal 26 307 359 for a reduction of 5,330 taking a taking a budget cut y'all. And it looks like the main change is the reduction from $51,000 to $35,000 for our professional technical services, which is what we've been using for our zoning consultants. So we are keeping a chunk of that because we will be continuing that into fiscal 26 at this point. And I did work with the clerk who worked with the administration on this. I do actually have a question for might be for Bob. Hi, Bob. It looks like we might be booking. Some of the services that we use for our meeting management and agenda in the wrong line item, just because I'm seeing no to date actuals in the legislative repair and maintenance line item. And I'm seeing that we're over on professional technical services. I was wondering if you might be able to take a look at that, or obviously Adam or Rich, if you have any thoughts on that. It's really, it's all coming out of the same ordinary expense pool, so it's not a big deal, but for our budget, but I just think we might be putting some stuff in the wrong line from how I'm reading it right now.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I think it's the Civic Plus stuff.
[Zac Bears]: Looks like it might be getting entered into 5310, and it should be getting entered into 5240. OK.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah, it's not a big deal. And don't worry about it now. But Bob's here. You're here. You're both aware of it. Great. Thanks, Bob. Do we have any questions about the legislative budget for the clerks or I guess for me? Well, we're hoping that we'll be able to find someone to help us out with that soon, so. Great, thank you. Next we have our, and thank you both. Thank you, Rich. Thank you, Adam. We have our electrical budget. We have a Superintendent of Wires Randazzo with us. Fiscal 25 budget, 678,805. Fiscal 26 proposed, 752,094. We have COLA increases, an adjustment to reflect overtime and historical actuals, a couple of contract increases, some inflationary cost increases for meter charges and office supplies. So these are all under fixed cost growth. And then we have a big increase adjusting for our streetlights and the lighting costs there. And off street for recreational as well, lights. So that's the summary here. I will go to Superintendent Weyers, same as everybody else. What, you know, any comment anymore on those changes that I just mentioned? Accomplishments last year, goals next year?
[Zac Bears]: No light poles falling down or anything like that.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do you have any questions for Mr. Randazzo on the electrical budget? I just have one. Could you just talk a little bit more about that increase for this, the, the 55,000 for the lights and what, what that's going towards.
[Zac Bears]: Right. All right, thank you for keeping the lights on for us all. We appreciate it. Seeing no further questions on electrical. Well, thanks for sitting through this. We'll take you to fire. Maybe we'll take Steve first next time. We have Medford Fire Department. We have our chief Todd Evans with us. We have fiscal 25 budget $15,126,017 fiscal 26 proposed $15,802,494 that's an increase of $676,477. And we're looking at. The vast majority of that fixed cost, it's all mostly in fixed cost growth, although quite a bit of some new expenses. We're seeing $526,000 in the increase for permanent employees. That's eight firefighters last year budgeted for half year and this is bringing those up to full year. We also have contract increases and step increases. We have some increase in part-time clerical staff to help with transitioning to a new office manager. We have some contract increases for the firefighters. Postage is going up a bit, janitorial going up a bit, clothing is up because there's 13 new hires being added, replacing radio batteries, and then we have some new expenses. We have legal costs going up under professional services, additional training within the fire department and individual classes, restoring a couple of the motor service repair items back to fiscal 24 levels. some new tracking software, prices are increasing for some of our firefighting and rescue supplies, and then conference dues going up, and then $8,200 for public education. So that's everything. We've got a long list of line items there on that second page. But with that, we'll turn it over to the Chief, and same as everyone else, if you could tell us, you know, anything more you'd like to say about those changes beyond, you know, I'm sure you have more context than what I have, just what's written here. Talk about some of your accomplishments this year, goals for next year, and something that's maybe not funded here that you'd like to see funded in future years.
[Zac Bears]: And are you, some private equity firms are buying up these fire manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers and gouging us basically? All right, great.
[Zac Bears]: Even Rich Lane didn't bring a video.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, that's great. All right. Less holes, that's always good.
[Zac Bears]: The run figures? Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Maybe we can circle back to it. It's available here. We'll make it available to the public.
[Zac Bears]: 10,000 spots. So these two chief, are we looking at, these are one-time costs or how much of this is ongoing? Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: And for the dive team, are those one-time costs as well, mostly, or how much of that is ongoing?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, chief. We'll go to questions. I have Councilor scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Just remember my first words, eight minutes after we knew that question six had failed, we're coming back for a fire station. So I'm one who will vote the debt exclusion Tuesday night if it's proposed. I also actually need to step out, so I'm being rude as well. But I do want to thank you for the presentation. I have a couple of minor questions, but I might just send them over email. Appreciate the work that you're doing. I know there's a lot that our department needs from a staffing, a capital, and other perspectives. So just really appreciate the challenge that you're facing and the work that you need to do. And thank you for being open and transparent and I really appreciate the presentation that you're focusing on, you know, really showing here a bunch of key goals here are some things that are not being funded and this is what they would cost. Some of those bigger questions that involve us and the mayor and everyone else, you know, maybe those are not able to be addressed, but I'm hoping that some of those one-time things around dive team and the drone team that really could improve your operational ability. And it seems mostly based on one-time costs that those are some things we might be able to move forward with much more quickly. So thank you. And I'm going to turn it over to Vice President Collins to take the chair, if that's all right with you. Thank you. And my apologies, Chief. Thank you to my colleagues.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee of the Whole May 20 2025 is called to order Mr. Clerk please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Six present one absent the meeting is called to order. There'll be a meeting in the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole at 6pm in the City Council Chamber second floor Medford City Hall 85 George P. Hassett Drive Medford MA and via Zoom. action and discussion items. 25 039 annual budget process for fiscal year 2026 preliminary budget meeting three. It will be the third preliminary budget meeting of the fiscal 26 budget process. The mayor has communicated the following departments will be present. Chevalier, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, Library, Human Resources, Planning, Development and Sustainability, and the Liquor Commission. The police were on the agenda, but the chief is not available, so that has been moved to next Tuesday, the 27th. We'll be starting at 5.30. along with DPW and the schools. So with that, we will take Chevalier first, and I'll just read quickly. We had fiscal year 2025 budget, 32,000, fiscal 2026 budget proposed 32,640. And with that, we have Director Riggi, and I'm gonna ask you just to describe the budget, any changes, some fiscal 25 accomplishments, goals for next year, and if there are any key needs and priorities that aren't funded this year that you'd like to see funded in the future. And I will go to our Facilities Director, Paul Ringy.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Riggi. You brought up something that's a great note for everyone. We're talking about the general fund budget, but that's not all of the money that our different city departments and schools use. So thank you for mentioning what's going on with other funds from the state and casino, etc. Do we have any questions from members of the Council for Director Riggi about the Chevalier budget? Seeing none, do we have any questions from the public either in person or on Zoom about the Chevalier general fund budget? Seeing none, thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Next up we have the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Office Budget. Director Nwaje is here with us on Zoom. Thank you for being here. We're making you a co-host. I think you had a presentation. You might want to share it. I'm seeing a thumbs up, so you'll be able to unmute and share your presentation, but I will just quickly read off We had a fiscal 25 budget of $118,502. A fiscal 26 proposed budget of $120,911. And this is an increase of $2,409. There's an increase in the permanent employees for a COLA increase and an increase of $1,000 in office supplies. And those are both fixed cost increases. With that, turning it over to Director Nwaje for the presentation and also, you know, the general prompt is just to talk about the budget change, any other details you might want to share about the budget, talk about any accomplishments of the previous year, goals for next year, and items that are key needs and priorities that were not funded this year that you'd like to see funded in future years. And with that, I'll turn it over to Director Nwaje.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Nwaje for the presentation. Do you have any questions for the Director about the budget for the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion? See no hands, I do have a couple of questions for you. Number one, I just wanted to thank you for the advocacy for the Disability Commission. That's much appreciated. I hope we can support that advocacy as well as part of our request for the budget. I did have a question around that and some other things. Is there any impact on your office of the uncertainty around any federal funding and programs or any outside grant funding?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Councilor Lazzaro, and then I have one more question after that. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Council is our director knowledge I just had one. One and a half more questions. I just noticed the self-response on the demographic snapshot. Definitely, you know, we were missing a lot of men, we were missing a lot of police, fire, DPW, and I'm wondering, do we have any kind of strategy or thoughts on how to try to get a little bit more engagement from those areas in that survey?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Yeah. That was a thought that I had had as well. So great. Any further questions for Director Nwaje? Seeing none, Frances, thank you so much. Much appreciated.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. All right. Next, we will take up HR Workers' Comp. Sorry, Barbara. We'll get you out of here. Just really quickly, thanks for being here Director Crowley. Just going to go quickly through this we have HR and workers comp the budget for human resources fiscal 25 was 269 480. And for fiscal 26 it's proposed at 324 93 for an increase net increase of 51,013. which is pretty significant. The main thing are some fixed cost growth. There was an employee hired in fiscal 25, and the fiscal 25 budget was lower than the expected pay for that. There were also COLA and step increases, and inflationary costs for office supplies and advertising and recruitment. And there's a new expense called case management at $10,000. And that's explained as an amount that's added for various medical expenses for the city. And then we also have workers comp which is going up from 788,000 fiscal 25 to 928,000 fiscal 26 that's $140,000 or about 18%. So with that I will turn it over to you. to talk about the change in those two budgets, any other details you might want to share, talk about some of your accomplishments for the previous year, some goals for next year, and then what needs and priorities are not funded this year that we need to see funded in future years. And with that, I'll turn it over to our HR director.
[Zac Bears]: We might need to move you closer or move you further.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we have any questions?
[Zac Bears]: I hope so. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, I have a couple. Give me a second here, get some feedback. Could you talk a little bit more about the case management line item?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Along those lines, do we expect a much smaller increase for workers' comp next year, or how much of the gap have we closed?
[Zac Bears]: Is there any way, I mean, this is supposed to be a form of insurance, right? Like, seems like we're paying a lot of money.
[Zac Bears]: Just in general, like their workers comp, like, you know, is there a better deal out there? Are we getting the best deal?
[Zac Bears]: What's the difference between 111F and the workers comps?
[Zac Bears]: Got it.
[Zac Bears]: So now it's everyone in the city is on the same.
[Zac Bears]: All right. OK. Two more things, just in general. seems like we've been able to fill more open positions than over the previous years.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Last question, classification and compensation study. What's the progress on that?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Thank you for that. In a final report, will we be able to see both the compensation elements as well as the new job descriptions? And that will be available to us. Great. And it sounds like if we're really lucky, January?
[Zac Bears]: Everyone's jockeying for position in these. I've already disappointed Barbara. So, you know, I don't even want to know what happened with Richly. But no, thank you. You know, I appreciate the hard work. Any further questions on our HR or worker's comments? Seeing none, thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: All right, library. We have director Barbara Kerr and we have Grace David from our trustees here and maybe lost a trustee. Sorry about that.
[Zac Bears]: We gained one, we lost one.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I'm turning you down. We had a way up for Lisa. Okay, so you'll be good.
[Zac Bears]: That's great.
[Zac Bears]: We want to hear the stats. We love the stats. All right, I have what I have here. Alrighty. Library, Medford Public Library. We had from the general fund, subsidy general fund, fiscal 25, $2,247,934. We're looking at for fiscal 26, $2,324,029 for an increase of $76,095 or about 3%. And we have there, an increase of one position, it looks like, which is good, although I'm sure you'll tell me maybe that that's not coming from the general fund at all, or maybe it's a typo, I see. What position is it? It's a professional assistant, it says, that we're going from 14 to 15. Seems no one knows about that except for what's on the sheet. But we can come back to that. But as I said, there's a net increase of 76,095. Most of this is in our fixed cost growth, the vast majority, with step raises and COLA increases for permanent employees, an increase in rates for part-time employees, longevity and a sick leave buyback estimate for fiscal 26 retirements, contracted services increase for some stormable landscaping and other service costs. increase in the price of office supplies, increase in the price of cleaning supplies, an increase for the audiovisual budget, physical media being in high demand, and AV costs being cut last year or reduced from the initial proposal last year, $5,000 increase, for library books and periodicals, and then there's one new expense, continuing education, the PLA convention in 2026, the big national conference for public libraries, multiple staff are attending, so there's more expense. So with that, we have Director Kerr with us, and we're going to be The prompt is just three things, talking about your budget and what the change was, two, talking about accomplishments for the last year, goals for next year, and three, what are key needs and priorities that you'd like to see funded that we weren't able to fund this year?
[Zac Bears]: We've got to lead with that.
[Zac Bears]: Too excited about all the great things you're doing.
[Zac Bears]: I heard you took my microfilm.
[Zac Bears]: You remember, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: The budgets, please. The budgets.
[Zac Bears]: Will the maps go too?
[Zac Bears]: Great. And I see everyone, you're all here on my board. I just wanted to say before we hear questions from councillors that it may be your last budget meeting, but we will have you back before you retire to celebrate the incredible work that you've done.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I'd love to hear.
[Zac Bears]: I was thinking you could do a story for for every year of the decades of service that you devoted to the city and our community or something you know maybe not every year but that might be too too in depth too much work we know everyone's very busy up there but mostly I was saying that to say that you've devoted your life to this library and it's thriving and Thousands of people are deeply appreciative of that. So we will.
[Zac Bears]: And I have no hobbies. You've given a lot to the city, so we will celebrate you. You'll be back here, and you won't have to do a presentation for money.
[Zac Bears]: Unless you want to. You can write your own ticket. So with that, I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Callahan, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Callahan. Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: We're expecting to get back a lot closer. We can fund the part-time employees with this.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Charlton William Bloomberg, Barbara Kerr, Metro Public Library. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: That's me.
[Zac Bears]: Not just recorded, it's broadcast.
[Zac Bears]: I didn't read it, but we are streaming on channel 22, channel 43, YouTube and medfordtv.org. And you can join by Zoom if you'd like. You can even call in and if you'd like to submit written comments, you can email. a her to be set mentor dash ma.gov and he'll forward them along. At least it's a funny last meeting.
[Zac Bears]: You did all right. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have any more questions for Director Kerr? We've seen them from the Council. Do we have any from members of the public? Or would the trustees like to say that we have a trustee coming up?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you, Grace. All right, seeing no further questions or comments on the library. Oh, David's coming up. All right. Welcome.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Any more questions or comments from the council, trustees, Director Kerr, or members of the public? Seeing none, I thank you all very much, and we'll keep fighting. We'll go now to Planning, Development, and Sustainability slash Boards and Commissions. We have our Director Alicia Hunt with us. And we have, we'll do PDS first then we can go through the commission budgets. But we're looking at fiscal 25 budgeted $819,207 fiscal 26 budgeted $917,163 for an increase of $97,956. No change in the number of positions on the services summary. The main increase is fixed cost growth, which is the staff planner salary coming off of ARPA. And three other employees shifted in percentages with funding. So they were added to the general fund and the COLA increases and step increases at $77,956. And then We have a new expense in professional technical expenses of 20,000 regarding continuation of the zoning work into fiscal 26. And an increase in legal fees since PDS is covering legal fees for the appeals to boards and for support for Medford Square. And I guess that's Medford Square RFP. Great. All right. And with that, I'll go to Director Hunt. We're going to ask you just if you want to talk about the specific budget change any more than that and the other details, talk about your accomplishments in fiscal 25, your goals for fiscal 26, and then what are some key needs and priorities that aren't funded this year that we would like to see funded in future years.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have any questions? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Great. Any further questions on the PDS core budget before we go into some of the commissions?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, we'll go to boards of commissions next to Bicycle Commission, no change. 1500, 1000 for public safety supplies, 1000 for travel conferences and training. Any further comments or questions by members of the Council on the Bicycle Commission? Seeing none, we will go next to, one second here, Zoning Board of Appeals, 12,500 in fiscal 25, 12,500 fiscal 26, no change. Any discussion or questions on the Zoning Board of Appeals? Maybe we could use this opportunity to talk about the difference between the Zoning Board and the Community Development Board a little bit. So the Zoning Board considers appeals of building department decisions.
[Zac Bears]: Where's the under construction?
[Zac Bears]: Community development board, fiscal 25 budget, 8,900, fiscal 26 proposed, 9,800. Looks like an increase in the stipends. I don't know if you want to speak to it.
[Zac Bears]: All right, next we have our Conservation Commission, fiscal 25 budget 7500, fiscal 26 budget 7500, no change.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Historic District Commission 5000 fiscal 25 5000 fiscal 26. Any questions? Councilor Callahan?
[Zac Bears]: That's historical commission. We'll get there next.
[Zac Bears]: Did I skip historical?
[Zac Bears]: I did. No, I did, I did skip this one, sorry. Historical commission or historic commission, 55, sorry, 35,000 fiscal 25, 35,000 fiscal 26, Councilor Kiley.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And then historic district commission also no change. I think you've described both of them. No, it was at the end, I skipped over historic.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have any questions on historic commission or historic district commission?
[Zac Bears]: And what are those?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Great. Well, thank you, Director Hunt.
[Zac Bears]: And we're on to the last. We have Chief Steph Mazarian to talk about the License Commission. We have a fiscal year 25 budget 5800, fiscal 26 proposed 5800, no change. Madam Chief of Staff, if you want to just tell us a little bit about what the License Commission does and what it's been doing and its goals for the future.
[Zac Bears]: Great and about a council is our.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Is there, and this is actually to my fellow Councilor, is there a, I was just actually looking up this exact same question. It looks like the special act that passed in 2012 said that they have to have a 50 seat minimum for restaurant liquor licenses. Did you talk to Sal about that at all?
[Zac Bears]: And this might be a question for Alicia as much as it is a question for you, Nina. In terms of bars, is that, do we allow that? Did we change the zoning to allow that? Or does Mrs. Murphy's technically serve food?
[Zac Bears]: And they're covered under special zoning definition here, too.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And just want to send thanks back. I know we're working. with the clerk's office and planning and Daria and the licensing commission on this whole question of getting into a good, better place on aligning our common mixtures licenses and the liquor license and the ABCC piece and everything else, and Councilor Lazzaro, thank you too. So thanks for that. Do we have any questions, further questions about the Liquor License Commission for the Chief of Staff? Seeing none, do we have any comments from members of the public? Seeing no one in the chamber, no hands on Zoom, do we have a motion? Motion to keep the paper in committee and adjourn by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes, meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Hi there. Thanks for the presentation. I think it looks really great. Just two questions. One on the Broadway corridor. I know we have the five plus two. I'm wondering if we want to, I mean, I can see it both ways. So just going to put out there may be a discussion of like, if we want to align it with the Somerville, if Somerville intends, and that's maybe a communication we should have with them to go to the six that's in the recommendations from the kind of joint research about because all of those lots are split between both cities. I just want to make sure we align with them. Uh, and their intent, I, I kind of see it both ways. Like, I like the idea of the 5 plus 2, because then if they want to go to 6, then there's incentive. So, it's not that it's not aligned in that sense. It's just that there's more community benefit from the alignment. So. I can stick there, but also. If the folks are just going to go to the buy, right? I think that's an important discussion for us to have. And I just wonder about the alignment on the dimensionals to, you know, I don't know what they're intending over there. Um, if they're going to keep this same dimensionals, generally, is there for district? Um. So, just some thoughts on that. I think that's just an added level of. Complexity because of the coordination with the planning department. Um, and then on the neighborhood nodes hubs, whatever we want to end up calling them. I would lean towards node over hub because I don't know that they will be hubs in practice. I just think there's kind of different implications. Hub implies a level of traffic and gathering that maybe isn't going to end up being there, kind of to Councilor Callaghan's point, like it really is a foot traffic oriented a place for people to come and get some basic commercial services close to them but not necessarily a place where we intend to have big gatherings so it's just like totally word semantic and I know I'm just kind of going into that but that has been a part of I think our conversation and this whole process is how do we pick words that residents and property owners and people reading our zoning understand what they mean. So just a thought on that. But I am really interested in the different options around the base district versus the citywide overlay versus the site-specific overlay. And I'm wondering, you know, I'm really wondering how what you talked about, Paola, with the characteristics element, like how that constrains or allows, you know, in both ways, what can go where? Because I really think there are a lot of places that, you know, either pre zoning or pre the 60s zoning, like have these kinds of things. And then the zoning made them nonconforming. And those are the places where I think focusing the nodes discussion really works because we actually have, you know, I think we should identify if there are neighborhoods where that's really not something that happened and make sure that we don't leave them out. But I also think for the neighborhoods where it does exist, like that's where we should focus the nodes and. And I just wonder, of those three options, which of those allows us to do the most and like I'm not, I think the base district thing I don't want to have a million little base districts everywhere like I think that's an option that just makes things complicated. But then I worry on the overlay does the city wide thing, maybe. Expand this into places where it doesn't really make sense. Um, just because of how the characteristics conversation works. So. It pushes me into kind of the site specific overlay. Idea, um, but that also creates, you know. I basically, I'm saying, I think the overlay makes more sense than the base districts. But I wonder how does the city wide versus the site specific. Make sure that these are in the targeted places we want and then if we go site specific, what's our process going to be for identifying especially places that neighborhoods. Where we don't have this existing type of infrastructure. And, you know, community infrastructure, I mean. How are we going to go about that? So that's just kind of if we really think that the citywide with the constraints basically means that these are mostly going to be in the same types of places that we have those existing uses and things now, that's great. And if we can see how that works, that makes sense to me. But then if it's not, then I think we have to look at the site specific just to make sure, you know, there's not a weird lot or a few weird lots in certain parts of the city that would end up having this kind of thing allowed on them and then actually it doesn't make sense for whatever reason. The street can't handle it, or it's actually really close to something else. Like there's just some weird externalities. I'm sure in practice, even if we did it, like people are in the market and property owners aren't going to build things that don't make sense in some sense. I mean, I don't think that's a guarantee, but I don't think they're going to put like a, you know, convenience store in the middle of the Brooks estate or something. Right. That doesn't make any sense. Um, But I just worry that there's kind of an externality there depending on which direction we go. So I'd love to interrogate and talk about that, the model a little bit more and what approach makes the most sense. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Those are the two options. It's, it can either lay over a specific area or it could be everywhere. You have a citywide overlay district. So it overlays everywhere. And that's like an example of like, Some cities have created a citywide affordable housing overlay where it's like, regardless of district, if you want to build affordable housing, you get this, you know, 100% affordable housing, for example, you get this, but Paula can probably say more.
[Zac Bears]: Apologistic clarify if you on the interactive map, you can see street names, right? So that's
[Zac Bears]: Motion to adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: 9th regular meeting Medford City Council may 13 2025 is called order Mr. Clerk, please call the roll Council Callahan, Vice President Collins, present.
[Zac Bears]: And just to note, Councilor Leming is absent due to his military service. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records. 25062 offered by Councilor Scarpelli, resolution in memory of Mr. William Shane Horty. Whereas the Medford City Council deeply mourns the passing of Mr. William Shane Horty, a lifelong resident of the city of Medford who passed away on March 10th, 2025 at the age of 70. And whereas Mr. Horty was born August 3rd, 1954 in Vacaville, California, the beloved son of the late Charles L. and Carol L. Spencer Horty, and later made Medford his lifelong home. And whereas Shane graduated from Medford High School and went on to honorably serve his country as a member of the United States Marine Corps. And whereas Mr. Horty dedicated over 30 years of honorable and selfless service to the city of Medford as a firefighter serving with courage, compassion, and unwavering commitment to public safety. And whereas Shane remained a proud and active member of the Medford Fire Department community long into his retirement, frequently visiting his former engine six station and staying connected with his fellow firefighters. And whereas Shane leaves behind a legacy of love, service, and deep-rooted community ties survived by his loving wife, Mary Kelly Horty, daughter Kelly M and her husband Chris J Jenke, granddaughter Casey K Jenke, sister Dawn Foley, brother Mark Horty and his wife Maureen and many nieces and nephews. Now therefore be it resolved that the Medford City Council formally extends its deepest sympathies to the family and loved ones of Mr. William Shane Horty and expresses his profound gratitude for his service, friendship and lasting impact on the City of Medford and be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to the Horty family as a token of the city's respect and admiration. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Please rise for a moment of silence. 25076 offered by President Bayer's Resolution to Recognize Food Allergy Awareness Week. Whereas more than 33 million Americans have food allergies, nearly 6 million are children under the age of 18. Whereas research shows that the prevalence of a food allergy is increasing among children and adults. Whereas nine foods cause the majority of all food allergy reactions in the United States, shellfish, fish, milk, eggs, tree nuts, peanuts, soy, wheat, and sesame. Food allergy reactions can range from mild symptoms to severe reactions, such as anaphylaxis, whereas anaphylaxis is a serious allergic reaction that is rapid in onset and may cause death, whereas every 10 seconds, food allergy sends a patient to the emergency room. Reactions typically occur when an individual unknowingly eats food containing an ingredient to which they are allergic, whereas emergency medical treatment for severe allergic reactions to food has increased by 377% in only a decade, Whereas childhood food allergies cost us families $34 billion each year, whereas the food allergy research and education is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the quality of life and the health of individuals with food allergies, and to providing them hope to the promise of new treatments be resolved by the Medford City Council that we recognize may 11 to 17 2025 as food allergy awareness week in the city of Medford. and that we encourage the residents of Medford to increase their understanding and awareness of food allergies and anaphylaxis. Be it resolved that we request that the mayor issue a proclamation to the same effect. And just to note, I believe the mayor did issue that proclamation. This was my item, just wanted to put it forward. That's an important issue and we often recognize different things, awareness weeks for different things here in this chamber. So the resolution otherwise speaks for itself. Does anyone else have anything they'd like to say on the matter? Is there a motion? on the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 16 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Records, the tabled records of the meeting of April 8th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Collins. Councilor Collins, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in favor of one absent, the motion passes. The records of the meeting of April 29th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Leming, whereas he notified that he'd be absent, unless you wanted to say something. Okay. He looked at me like he wanted to say something. I did review them. I found them in order. If someone wants to move approval or had other comments on the motion approved by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Reports of committees, is there a motion to join? A motion to join by Councilor Tseng, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Reports of committees, 25039, which was our committee of the whole on April 29th, April 30th, and May 6th. These were budget meetings when we heard preliminary budget presentations from several departments. 24033 offered by Vice President Collins, planning and permitting committee, April 30th, 2025. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Leming with Resident Services and Public Engagement. Is Councilor Tseng the vice chair of that committee?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. And the clerk has confirmed you've got them all right. 24057 offered by Councilor Lazzaro public health and community safety committee may 7 2025.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve the joint committee report seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one absent. The committee reports are approved. Refer to committee for further discussion. Resolution to attend Veterans Department event as listening session by Councilor Lazzaro. 25073, be it resolved that a city councilor join the Medford Veterans Services Director Veronica Shaw at the Veterans Coffee and Cookies Hour as a listening session to hear directly from Medford veterans and to answer questions, be it further resolved that this resolution be referred to the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee on the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to refer to Resident Services.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to refer to committee by Councilor Lazzaro, second, oh, sorry, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I'll take that also as a second of the motion. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. 25074 offered by Councilor Callahan, resolution to invite the Office of Prevention Outreach to a Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee meeting Whereas the Office of Prevention and Outreach offers many much-needed services to our community that residents may not know about. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we invite the Office of Prevention and Outreach staff to join us at a Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee meeting on a Wednesday night to inform the City Council and the public about their services. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: on the motion of Councilor Callahan to refer to the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee seconded by seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. It's an affirmative one absent the motion passes. Hearings 25036 petition to amend special permit 282 Mystic Avenue. Public hearing notice. City of Medford City Clerk's Office. The Medford City Council will conduct a public hearing on April 8th. 2025 at 7pm in the Howard F Alden Memorial Auditorium on the second floor of Medford City Hall at 85 George P Hassett Drive Medford Massachusetts relative to an amendment requested by clear channel outdoor on behalf of the property located at 282 mystic have Medford Massachusetts or 2155 the petitioner is seeking an amendment to a previously granted special permit. The petitioner is seeking the amendment to upgrade and replace two digital screens on the signboard located at the property and to ask for a review and potential adjustment reduction in the permit fee. A copy of the full text of the requested amendment can be viewed in the office of the city clerk from 103 Medford City Hall. Please call the Medford City Clerk's office at 781-393-2425 for any aids and accommodations by order of the Medford City Council signed Adam L. Herdeby, City Clerk. We have continued this twice now, but I will reopen the public hearing, continued from April 8th and April 29th. Do we have a representative of the petitioner from Clear Channel present? Please raise your hand on Zoom or let us know if you're in the chamber. Not seeing a representative of Clear Channel. Councilor Scripple, I'm guessing they didn't contact you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. But if the petition is not here and move to table again, keep it on file on the motion to continue the public hearing to our next regular meeting by Councilor Scarpelli and request review by the city solicitor seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. It's the affirmative. One absent. The public hearing is continued to May 27th and we will request review by the solicitor. The public hearing is temporarily closed. petitions presentations and similar papers, 25072 petition for an amendment to a common victual or license the establishment. One second here. petition to the Honorable City Council Councilors the undersigned respected request amendment for operating hours on the common victuals license. All days, Sunday through Saturday, or Monday through Saturday. Brief explanation, we would like to extend our license to 1 a.m. We have events that go into a later hour and don't want to end early, sports games, et cetera. Business name, The Establishment Restaurant. Business address, 175 Rivers Edge Drive. And business owner, Matthew Greer II. Do we have the petitioner present? And I will go to Councilor Scarpelli in the meantime.
[Zac Bears]: So, um, is the petition to him and could you raise your hand on zoom, Matthew Greer, or a representative for the establishment.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'm not seeing them present.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve with a 30-60-90 day review, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this? Any objections or discussion? Seeing none, on the motion as seconded, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative one absent the motion passes motions orders and resolutions to 4069 offered by Councilor Tseng amendment to the Human Rights Commission, enabling ordinance. Motion to waive the reading in favor of a summary by the proponent. On the motion of Councilor Tseng the way of the reading seconded by seconded by Council is our own.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Councilor Tseng. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: And then what was the language strike in 5626B1?
[Zac Bears]: Advise the city, got it. I just have one question on your amendment. Yes. In 62 it says there's 11 members.
[Zac Bears]: And then you named eight for the staggered terms. My math.
[Zac Bears]: All right, just make sure that gets corrected and what we send to the clerk as well.
[Zac Bears]: All right, and on the process, this was in resident services? Yes, this is in resident services. And how many meetings did you have on it?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. So on the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve for first reading as amended, seconded by councilor Lazzaro. Any further discussions by members of the council? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Zang, just one other question. Did we strike all of D2 or just—okay. Great. And could you, in addition to sending the amendments, could you send a clean copy in a Word document? Thank you, just for the advertising. Any further discussion by members of the Council on the motion? Seeing none, we will go to any discussion by members of the public, either in person or on Zoom. You can come to the podium in person or raise your hand on Zoom, and you'll have three minutes. I see on Zoom, you have me near, give me one moment.
[Zac Bears]: All right. I'm going to recognize you and please name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Muneer. We will go now to the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Any other questions? Or is that the main question?
[Zac Bears]: recognize you for, well, actually I have to go back to Jennifer and then we'll come back to you. Jennifer, name and address, record you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I gotta go jump over you to Gaston and then come back to you. Gaston, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And we'll go back for a minute and then we'll, Justin, I hope is writing everything down. We'll answer all the questions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to Barry and then I'll go to Councilor Seidert. Barry, three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: 56D6D.
[Zac Bears]: D2, so under research and reporting educational data such as school discipline rates and dropout rates from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education metrics on IEPs.
[Zac Bears]: It's D2. It's one page further. So it wasn't B2, the periodic.
[Zac Bears]: I was not able to hear that. 25066B, the main section. Instead of reading the city administration and the public school system, it would just read the city.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng on the questions.
[Zac Bears]: So there was a further amendment to add language in 5066D regarding timeliness of reporting? Yes.
[Zac Bears]: And just a clarifying question. It sounds like staff. The mayor shall sign a city council liaison. She asked the Councilor to do it, obligated to do it. Is that correct?
[Zac Bears]: They would not be obligated.
[Zac Bears]: So it could be a resolution to delegate that to someone. I guess what I'm saying is it sounds like you're putting that in to allow city councillors to be considered.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion by members of the council on the amended amendment?
[Zac Bears]: Section 50-67? Yeah. All right. And please send the amendments on a clean copy. Yes. I'm going to go to Steve Schnapp, name and address for the record. Steve, you have three minutes. I'm going to unmute you, and I'll restart the timer.
[Zac Bears]: I do not. I mean, I don't know if any city commissions are not staffed currently. I don't, I certainly can say there's no city commission staffed by city council.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, I'm seeing no discussion members of the public. We do have a motion from Councilor Tseng as amended to approve as amended by Councilor Tseng, is there a second on the motion? On the second by council Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: For approval for first reading as amended.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 16 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. 25.075 offered by Vice President Collins, proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance, Medford Square District and West Medford Square District from the Community Development Board. This was referred from the planning and permitting committee to our regular meeting the initial proposal. The process from here is that the council is obligated to refer zoning amendments, rightfully presented zoning amendments such as this one to the community development board. The community development board will then hold a public hearing on the matter. They may choose to make recommendations to the council. The council will then hold a public hearing on the matter and consider any proposed recommendations from the community development board And then after the public hearing of the council is concluded, the council would vote to adopt or reject. With that, I will go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to refer to the Community Development Board by Vice President Collins, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, one in the negative, one absent. The proposal is referred to the Community Development Board. Communications from the Mayor, 25077, submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Manfred Square parking lot development RFP evaluation committee update. I know that Director Hunt was stuck in a Traffic Commission meeting. We do have Economic Development Director Sal DeStefano with us. I see several PDS folks in here. Do we know where Alicia Hunt is? Still in Traffic Commission.
[Zac Bears]: Is there a motion to table till later in the meeting by Councilor Callahan seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk please call the roll. Yeah. Oh, I already called the roll though. We do have to vote. I'm serious.
[Zac Bears]: No. One in the affirmative, five in the negative, one absent. Motion fails. Is she coming down here? Okay. Well, I can just get us a little bit of preview damping while we get there. So the update that we're receiving from the RFP Evaluation Committee tonight is regarding the awarding of the proposal submitted by transom. So we do have here from the mayor, dear President Bears and members of the Medford City Council, the evaluation for the request for proposals RFP for lease and development of real property has completed its review and evaluation work. I respectfully request and recommend that council permit a presentation to be made to your honorable body on the proposals received the evaluation process and the committee's vote for the preferred developer director planning development and sustainability Alicia will be present at your meeting to present on behalf of the committee thank you for your kind attention to this matter sincerely Brianna Lugo-Curtin, Mayor. We, the city, has had several plans on Medford Square over the past 20 years. All of them have talked about activating these surface lots behind and adjacent to City Hall. And last fall, an RFP was drafted regarding those lots, requesting that proponents the City of Toronto. Um submit proposals for the redevelopment of those lots based on a number of conditions. The city did receive two proposals. There's an evaluation committee of which I was a non voting member. The mayor was a non voting member. Um and city staff and our Chamber of Commerce president were voting members that the two proponents, and then eventually, after review, and there's also a scoring sheet based on a bunch of objective criteria, the committee made a recommendation to award the proposal submitted by transom, and Director Hunt is here to share a little bit more about that. The next steps from here are that now the city will be able to enter into negotiations with the proponent. The proposal is a starting point, not a final product, so city staff working with the proponent will be able to tune that proposal, hopefully make some changes that I know the city has wanted to make. And then once a final agreement has been drafted, the City Council will need to vote to approve the lease agreement for the city-owned land that these new developments would sit on. And with that, I think I provided some useful information and used the time well. Could we allow Director Hunt to share her screen? I'll recognize the Director of Planning, Development and Sustainability.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, it didn't change anything for us. There's a little thing in the bottom right, just a little paper.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Does that do anything? No. I don't know.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have any tips?
[Zac Bears]: We do have our Medford Community Media Director, Kevin Harrington, to help out.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know that we can promise that. All right.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Hunt. Do we have questions or comments from members of the Council? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Just if I could really quickly to Councilor Scarpelli's point, something that, you know, having talked in the council in general and looked at the plans and worked with the team, in the RFP before we got proposals to the request for proposals, we did include some additional language around the city owned parking lots behind the strip along Riverside Avenue and also the City Hall property itself to see if maybe we could encourage some potential expansion and renovation of this building. And we spoke with Atrius Health to see if we could leverage the parking garage. And we spoke with Hamilton, well, not me, but you spoke with Hamilton companies about all of the property that they own on Riverside. So those were included in the process. And I think, at least for me, as I continue to participate in the process, going back at bites at those apples and really trying to see if we can get them on board is going to be a priority for me. And Davis had also done some preliminary designs on potentially some upgrades to this building, which I think would be really great that maybe we could try to incorporate as well. So I just wanted to put all of that out there that those were some things that I raised as part of the process that are still going to be a priority for me. But thank you for giving me time and Director Hunt, I'll turn it over to you.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other comments or questions from members of the council? I just wanted to note along those points, too, that I think the flip side of some of this is How much bigger do certain elements of the project get to allow for more community benefits? And also, what is the financing capacity of the entity that we're working with? And so those are two of the other things that we're working through.
[Zac Bears]: A restaurant. A restaurant. A fully functioning restaurant.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it's the five over two and even Davis, they proposed three, five over twos, but didn't go above that, even though Hyatt Place is obviously taller and the Medford Housing Authority buildings are obviously taller. And even the zoning we are gonna pass is gonna allow more in those spaces or zoning that's been proposed is allowing that. So, yeah, it's a tough, tough one. Councilor Lazzarodo and Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: never a bad tenant until they need a bailout.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you all. Yeah. And I think, you know, we're gonna try to go as big as we can and make sure that whatever we do either enables some of the longer term things that we talked about, or at least doesn't block them and sets us up for those future discussions so I'm really looking forward to continuing to work on that with you guys. We'll have another update for the council, hopefully, you know, next few months.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And there's a motion from councils are to receive and place on file seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan. Do we have any further discussion by members of the council or members of the public, either in person or raise your hand on zoom. If one person on zoom. Marine, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: The units are all rentals and the proposal was 20% of the units affordable at 80% AMI, but that's not the final answer. And there's either potential for more units, you know, if it's a bigger project, maybe more units at that level, or maybe a change in the distribution of the affordability requirements. I don't know if you have anything more on that, Director Hunt. Great. Nope, we're good. Any more questions, Marie, on that?
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely. So sorry to use that term. 80% of the area median income, and that changes depending on the household size and it looks like Director Hunt. And it also changes every year. But Director Hunt has the income and then just before you read the income I believe it's the way it works is it's, it can be a maximum of 30% of your income but I'll just let you.
[Zac Bears]: I think, Marie, to your larger question, like the question of, you know, what is something that a person can afford to rent is part of the discussion of like, well, 80% of AMI is very high. Should we look at 50% of AMI or 30% of AMI and that would pretty significantly reduce the deed restricted rent amounts? The problem is that it also reduces the revenue and that reduces the ability to finance the project. And because of how you know we're doing this, we're getting public benefits because we're leasing the land. And that is a portion of the cost, but a huge portion of the cost of housing is the construction cost and the state does not Certainly, the federal government and state government do not provide money for us to do that. They also don't allow cities to, for example, take out bonds to fund the construction of housing. And that could, you know, that maybe could be a choice that the city could say, if that was an option afforded to us, we could maybe try to be a part of financing this project, but the state doesn't allow us to do that. So we're kind of, you know, reliant, again, around financing issues here.
[Zac Bears]: It's definitely going to be part of the conversation. The lease payment, I think, proposed by Transom is about a million dollars a year.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, I think we'll have to look at the I mean, we could there's a financial proposal as part of the request for proposal. We're not doing this to give the developer a windfall like that's not the intent of this. But the purchase cost of the land versus the least cost of the land versus like as a proportion of the cost of the project is smaller than you would think the land is not like half the cost of the project. the construction costs are the vast majority of the costs, at least from the financial point of view.
[Zac Bears]: It is 25%, you know, it's 20% affordable. It's 25% more affordable units that are required by the inclusionary zoning. We've been going back and forth.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I just, I do want to let some other people go, Marie, and I'm always happy to, I'm always happy to talk about it more. And I think just the thing I would say is the affordable housing piece was a big component of the proposal. It's going to be a big proponent, like component of, the negotiation, and we're gonna do our best as part of the... I hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to Paul Garrity. Paul, name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I can go to a director, but there is a financing plan. That's part of the proposal. It outlines in pretty significant detail what the proponent expects to receive in rents, both from the affordable units and the non-affordable units, the market rate units, how those are coming in over time. There is a, and it goes out at least 30 years, I think longer than that. I don't know if you wanna talk a little bit more about the specific financial proposal.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I mean, I think the easiest answer to the question on the financing plan is if the developer can, I mean, subject to having the equity and the banks, you know, the financing to do it, if the developer can build more market rate units and they can provide more public benefits, whether that's more affordable units or other public benefits or affordable units at a deeper level of affordability. But that's kind of the, we're still in the really tough Catch-22 situation here where This is privately financed and it's privately financed by private finance institutions that are seeking a profit. It is not a publicly financed project. By leasing the land, we're getting some more public benefit because of how we're doing it and because we are a stakeholder. But it's different than, say, if we were having a nonprofit developer trying to help us finance this and having the money for it or especially if there was government financing available, public financing or funding available, that would be a completely different conversation. So it's essentially a version of what we do with our inclusionary zoning on private land, but just somewhat improved in a sense because it's also a lease of this public land. I don't know if you wanna add to that at all. Okay, Paul, I'm just gonna go to Josh a little.
[Zac Bears]: And that's the developer's financing plan. So if they can have more affordable housing, you know, if they can get the equity to do that, then more affordable units or units at a deeper affordability or both would be on the table. I'm gonna go to Joshua. Joshua. Name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry about that everyone. Any further public comment? I'll go to direct to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: They are significantly below market rate for new construction.
[Zac Bears]: I think a lot of people say affordable they say small a affordable. And this is big a affordable it's legally, the definition of subsidized housing inventory affordable.
[Zac Bears]: And we did solicit a lot of different bids, you know, if a nonprofit housing developer had bid on this would be in a different conversation probably because it's probably who he would have gone with.
[Zac Bears]: And, you know, I mean, I think, right, you're, you're completely right. And Marie's completely right. And others are completely right that, like, the market has failed, and the government is not intervening in the failure of the market. And then the question is, do you do nothing and hope that a different government will set different rules? Like, how much do you want to try to wait out like the public housing renaissance and the social housing renaissance in this country? Or do you try to preserve as much existing naturally affordable housing as you can by at least trying to meet market demand. And I think we're in a, in a difficult situation with that so like I completely agree. And it's, as for me, many, you know, five years up here. really hard that these kinds of decisions are put on us at this level of government because the state and federal government are completely ignoring and absent and in some cases making the situation a lot worse. That's why I brought up like the if the state just allowed like us to use municipal bond rates that would open up some financing options here even if it wasn't like us actually paying back the bonds themselves just if the city could help finance it at those rates, right? Like that would be a game changer versus like these guys had to go out and find $200 million in financing at the current rates. So it's tough and it's hard. There's one more comment. Molly, could you start your video before I let you speak? All right, you seem to be a real person. You're upside down, but I trust you're not gonna zoom on me. Molly, name and address for the record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, you can now, yes, that was just a verification.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Molly. And I know that's going to be an issue that we try to balance as well as part of the project. Do you have anything more you want to add on that, Director Hunt?
[Zac Bears]: We would love some big, beautiful steel buildings. I can tell you that. Yes. All right, we had a motion to receive and place on file by Councilor Nazaro, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I don't have it. If you can share it with me, if you share with the clerk, actually. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion, Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 60 affirmative one absent the motion passes 25078 amendments to the parking ordinance section 78 173. I don't know, Director Hunter you on any of this or. Okay, it's fine. So as a member of the traffic commission. Yeah, so we had a there was a committee of the whole meeting, the Chief of Staff talked about it. This is a proposal to repeal an ordinance section on municipal employee and municipal business parking because the Traffic Commission is now putting in regulations around municipal parking to address the parking shortage at City Hall and people parking at City Hall for non-municipal business. And the request is to repeal this ordinance so that there's no conflict between the Traffic Commission regulations and the city ordinance. Is there anything else you'd want to add on that, Alicia?
[Zac Bears]: And I know that chief, I think the chief of staff and the parking director talked about this with folks in committee the whole, I wasn't able to attend that meeting. It's my first miss this year, but I wasn't able to be there. Is there anything else that folks who were at that meeting want to add about the proposal or anything that I missed from the discussion at that meeting?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it's, it's actually in here pretty specifically about. The above changes allow the city to update the signage at City Hall and enforce parking restrictions. Currently, we have commuters who are parking in the lot and using the bus or walking over to Harvard Vanguard. So they're not using the Harvard Vanguard lot and they're not using the commuter lot. They're using City Hall and it's making it hard for employees and people who want to do business at City Hall to do business. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there a motion to approve for first reading? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve for first reading, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Paris? Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. 25079, appropriation of free cash for Carr Park. Let's take both of you, let's talk about it all at once, even though there's two papers for Carr Park. I'm guessing it's for the same reason. So we have an appropriation of free cash and a CPC appropriation for Carr Park. And then Teresa will just do the community garden piece when. Yeah. All right. So we have from the mayor, a request for 65,000 contingency funding fees to a car park renovation. And this is a funding match with the CPA is also a funding match so I'll go to a planner central.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions from members of the council? I just have one. What was the contingency percentage? If we didn't, like, if we didn't approve this, what was the contingency?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: 0.09%. So a lot less than that 2.3 to 4, 2.6.
[Zac Bears]: And if the contingency funds aren't used, then they go back to the source?
[Zac Bears]: And in this case, would they go evenly back to the source or have you talked about that?
[Zac Bears]: So don't dig up any more problems.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Any further questions from members of the Council? Seeing none, do we have any questions or comments from members of the public? Seeing no hands in person or on Zoom, is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. It was a dead tie and I was looking at Councilor Lazzaro, which felt unfair. So motion to approve the free cash appropriation by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 16 vote and one absent, the motion passes. And if you want to stick around for the next, you know, we'll happily entertain you.
[Zac Bears]: Not when we're calling the roll, I'll tell you that.
[Zac Bears]: Also the site of the former carnival.
[Zac Bears]: Too long. Councilor Callahan, and then we have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli to approve.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and just to note, these were both unanimous votes of the CPC to recommend and the conditions you mentioned about the community garden were mentioned here.
[Zac Bears]: Great, I just have one question actually for Amanda, which is kind of why I asked you to stay, I'm so sorry. And it's, you don't need to answer it for too long. Do you think that the fact that those courts were buried is the reason that like the courts above ended up becoming like cracked and broken and stuff?
[Zac Bears]: And that's something you're accounting for in this project.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. I appreciate that. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve the CPC appropriation request seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Six in the affirmative, one absent.
[Zac Bears]: Six of the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Saw which way that one was going. Thanks you guys. Great. It's like a first term trigger of some kind. I think you were the last in the alphabet at the time. Councilor Schiarpelli. 25081 submitted by the mayor approval for a lease purchasing finance agreement for the school security upgrades. We do have our assistant superintendent, Peter Cushing with us. He's been with us all night. Thank you, Peter for sticking with us. And this is on the agenda because We approved the funding for this, a free cash appropriation. And it turns out there's a state law that requires us to also for specifically for lease to own agreements, we have to pass a separate thing. So I'll go to Peter to explain that a little more.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Peter. And just to note the specific language, dear President Bears and City Councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body vote to authorize a lease purchase financing agreement under Chapter 44 of Section 21C of the General Laws for the acquisition of security equipment upgrades for Medford Public School buildings for which an appropriation was approved. By vote of the city council on April 29 2025 council paper number 25 066 the term of such agreement not to exceed five years and further that the school committee shall be authorized to enter into such agreement and any related documents on behalf of the city. Thank you for your kind attention to these matters respectfully submitted brand Lungo-Koehn mayor. So that is the item before us. Do we have any comments or questions on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve seconded by seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Any public discussion? Sure. On this. Okay. I assume you had a study depending on 4421 C. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Public participation to participate outside of Zoom, please email ahertabase at medford-ma.gov. We did have a paper from Anne Driscoll. Do we have Anne on the meeting? Anne, I don't think you're here in person. Anne, are you on Zoom? Is there a motion to... Yeah, what do you think? Can we just carry it over? We're just gonna carry it over. So we can just go to open public participation, name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes. You can come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Not the tone it down, but the swear words.
[Zac Bears]: Kevin's gonna have to.
[Zac Bears]: We're a little bit over. Thank you. Appreciate it. Appreciate the comment. I can just say As one Councilor, I have been communicating a similar message to the mayor and the chief of police, especially last week when we had federal masks, unidentified federal agents in the city, intimidating the public. And when we have this abuse of power and intimidation and essentially a form of extortion as well to extort our compliance with illegality, I don't think our response can be We can't do anything about it. I personally received communications from people asking me are, are these, who are these people, is there a criminal gang in my neighborhood. you know, and it's people are very, people are very scared. So I think and what we saw in Worcester last week, and how Worcester police handled that abhorrently, and is now pushing what I consider to be a pretty reactionary administration in the city of Worcester to consider a city policy about what the city will do in response to this. I think for folks who have said that they are on board with this, I think we need to be doing the same and have a very clear policy about this, how the city responds to federal intimidation and abuse of power, as well as informing the public about it. And I know that public health and community safety brought up some of these concerns last week. I don't know if you guys want to add anything. I see Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And, you know, I'm gonna watch the recording, see what was said, but what really frustrated me about what happened in Worcester, what I don't wanna see happen here is local police functionally being used to facilitate and protect people executing legally dubious or illegal orders. I think that's a serious, I think that's maybe a gap in the non-cooperation agreement that we have right now. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, we do have one item under unfinished business eligible for third reading. Oh, sorry, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to take paper 25-053 from the table and approve for third reading by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng. The gender affirming care and reproductive care ordinance. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears. Yes. Takes the affirmative. What absent the motion passes and the ordinance is ordained. Any further discussion or is there a motion? on the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to a turn seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes motion passes meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: I just say 1 thing before we do that. Hi, everyone. Zachary's here. Just want to say 1 thing. And to remind everyone, I think something we have these lines when we talk zoning of the maps and what are the maximum heights and incentive zoning. I think it's really important to remember that just what the zone is and what the maximum height is does not define what can happen on a lot. you have to take what the zoning is the zone is and what the zone allows also the dimensional requirements the performance standards parking requirements you know you can't build a seven-story plus two-story incentive structure on a 3,000 square foot lot because there's not enough room for the dimensional and the parking and the daylight and that's really important to remember it's a combined assessment of all of the zoning rules that we're doing not just the top level So, if anyone has seen the presentation and says, oh, this is I don't like it. They're going to put a 7 story building on this very tiny lot next to me. It's not going to happen because the dimensional requirements don't allow it and the other requirements don't allow it. And I say that in both directions, right? If people are worried that buildings that they want to see built will be too small. or too big, right? It comes down to more than just what the zone is and the maximum. It's also about the other dimensional and performance requirements that are part of the zoning ordinance. So it's just important to recognize that and I think that's important for us to state and include as part of our presentation because I think a lot of conversation focuses on just this top line number and figure for a zone.
[Zac Bears]: Right. They're saying to me that they can't hear the questions, but the Zoom
[Zac Bears]: questions like these are you should contact the building department and they may be able to provide you more guidance um and you might have to wait until the the new zoning is in effect um at least in some cases and when is that is that in august the new zoning well this is getting going to get referred to the cd board it's going to go through a public hearing process it's going to take a month or two months
[Zac Bears]: You can also email OCD at Medford-MA.gov, and we can work on specific questions.
[Zac Bears]: We've expanded significantly communication to the many channels we have available to us.
[Zac Bears]: I manage a lot of meetings. I think if we could have one voice, and if we could go back to going back to early, back and forth comments, and if we could try to keep questions to one to two minutes so that we can get a question heard, that'd be ideal. So if we could go back to Zoom and ask the next question. I hear that, but we have a civil process. We're going to try to take an orderly process and we'll sit here as Rick. We're going to sit here as long as we can hear everybody, but I want to hear everybody in orderly process.
[Zac Bears]: I can say two things about this. Number one, this is, tonight we're talking about the Medford Square, West Medford Square, and the ADU proposal. I just want to bring that up. I will quickly answer your question. Hatch Road is in the residential district proposal. Part of the discussions with the Community Development Board and the planning staff around the residential district proposal was to address and put different districts in, specifically based on the issue is have a lot of issues, some of them are topographically difficult. Essentially, they're not built up to the standard that's required by law for a public way. My understanding of the residential district proposal proposed last night is that areas with private ways are generally. One district of lower for that reason, in general on private ways, I would refer you to a couple of things on the city website. There's, I believe, something from our traffic and folks talking about private ways as well as maybe a police police meeting about private winners. My understanding of the mayor's policy is that we do not have the funding to currently even maintain and improve our public ways and that the city is not using funds on private ways unless it is essentially an emergency condition where a police or fire vehicle would not be able to go down that street if it wasn't repaired.
[Zac Bears]: option that is available to property owners on private ways is to work you know technically everyone who lives on a private way owns the private way collectively and the people who own private ways can put additional restrictions on access to their um parking and access to their private way uh so that's one difference between the private and the public way as well all right thank you um i will i mean
[Zac Bears]: I think very simply, the state is reducing local control under 48. Right.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to add one thing, Sheila. Thanks for the question about sewing. this relates to zoning by allowing especially i think in these vacant storefronts we have a lot of buildings that i don't think anyone would say are particularly attractive or that we want to keep in the long run certainly there are some but by changing the zoning use the calculus for some of these property owners um to potentially sell the property to someone who would maintain them better um and it's not um you know again we have limited tools at our disposal because private property owners do fundamentally have the right to do what they want with their properties including if they're very wealthy to keep them unrented um but we are looking at a vacant building ordinance and other ordinances to try to address problems and the problems that you raised are two of them but specifically for zoning um right now people don't want to sell maybe if we change the zoning someone comes in and can convince them to sell that it doesn't currently
[Zac Bears]: I don't want to say too much on the residential district proposal, but as it relates to Medford Square, we had a lot of discussions. Medford Square is circled, essentially, by the river and the highway, which create barriers. The other issue is that on the north side of the square, you have really difficult both topographical situation with the summit road, et cetera. I think the residential district proposal proposed some changes in those residential zoning along high street, but we didn't think about it and those were the major issues.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, now, all right, we just disconnected for about a minute. Sorry. Again, the hybrid Internet situation. It's not really incredibly feasible to be doing these meetings. We had a question in the room and the question in the room was, can we talk about the process going forward? and upcoming moments for people to further engage. And we also confirmed that the Medford Square, West Medford Square and ADU proposals have not been approved yet. Right now they are going to be at the city council to then be referred to the community development board. So there's many public meetings ahead, but go back to Kit for that. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Can I just add to that? So really there's two parts of this. There's creating a proposal and then the state law required public hearings. and then it being approved. Right now, we have two sets of things. We have the residential districts. We created a proposal that went to the Community Development Board. They opened a public hearing. That has now been happening over the course of three Community Development Board meetings. And there will be a fourth Community Development Board meeting on May 21st. where they may choose to make recommendations and then send that to the council and then the council would have a public hearing and then the council would vote to adopt the residential districts and consider the recommendations or make further amendments based so that's the residential districts
[Zac Bears]: Those are the community board meetings are on zoom. The city council is in city council. So that will be a public hearing and city council hybrid in person in the chambers and also on zoom. And that's the final meeting where a decision is made to approve or reject the amendment. So that's the residential districts which we weren't talking about here tonight. Although we ended up talking about it. Then there's a second grouping right now for some proposals. Medford Square, West Medford Square and the accessory dwelling unit changes. Those are we've essentially we've come to the point where we have a proposal. That's what we're talking about tonight in this Q&A. This is just a Q&A. It's not part of the formal process. The City Council is going to, it will be on the agenda next Tuesday for the City Council to send this to the Community Development Board for Medford Square, West Medford Square and the ADUs. Then they will start their public hearings on that. Then they will make their recommendations and that will come back to the Council. And then there are three or four additional topics The Medford Tufts institutional zoning, the other other corridors, which essentially is just Boston Avenue and Main Street corridor, the Wellington district. And then kind of a grouping of city wide regulations around parking and some other regulatory items. Those have yet to be. We're still at that starting in the city council planning and permitting committee, and then it would go to the community development board and then it will go to the. Come back to the city council for approval. Basically, what I'm saying is. look out on the city website for the community development board agendas look out on the city website for the city council agendas and then there's also a page medfordma.org zoning where we are doing our best to as quickly as possible add all of the links to upcoming meetings recordings of meetings meeting materials and everything else related to zoning immediately upcoming The May 21st community development board hearing on the residential districts. That is a. you know, another moment to be heard. And then they will make a recommendation after that, that will come back to the city council as early as May 27. And then these proposals need to be advertised throughout the whole zoning process. So we will probably refer them out to the community development board next week, but the community development board meetings on those are likely to be in June and then come back to the council after that.
[Zac Bears]: So we're hearing from Daniel Evans that Medford Square, West Medford Square, and the ADUs would likely first be considered by the Community Development Board on June 7th. That's their first opening of their public hearing. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: changes to the zoning ordinance, why did they not occur by referendum? Essentially the state, so all of our other ordinances are outlined by the charter, et cetera. Zoning, the state gives cities and towns the power to set their own land use and zoning under Chapter 40A, Mass General Law Chapter 48. Mass General Law Chapter 48 outlines the process for how zoning is adopted. And it is through, essentially, it is actually the city council That is the mayor doesn't even have to sign the zoning ordinance. City councils, legislative bodies of cities and towns, so town meetings and city councils set zoning by state law.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, yeah, that'll be in the other corridors as well.
[Zac Bears]: The joint, the joint proposed.
[Zac Bears]: And I'll just add for people who don't have the context, the reason that they're brought the city line between Medford and Somerville is about 10 or 20 feet behind Broadway. So most of the lots are in both cities. So this both of the cities zoning needs to be the same or similar so that they can build on those lots.
[Zac Bears]: On private ways, the answer is we've looked at it, and it's the cost is exorbitant. So, 100 to 500Million dollars, potentially more than that to bring all the public and that's like ballparky. We don't that's not what tariffs. But, uh. Yeah, so either the city could, if the city somehow came into a couple billion dollars, we'd all be very happy. And maybe that would be a project we could consider. But the other thing is that the owners of a private way currently can pay to bring it up to a standard to be adopted as a public way. So that's how that would work. But we have looked at it and the issue is the infrastructure cost. The city can't adopt a private way as a public way unless it is outfitted to the standard of a public way. which includes stormwater, sidewalks, ADA compliant, I mean the whole thing. It's also one of the reasons that full street reconstruction costs so much right now these days. On the traffic question, the main answer is the traffic impact of specific projects would be determined based on a project proposal and the site plan review process. But we have a we have development linkage fees for that go towards this infrastructure so that pay into a linkage fee structure which we're trying to update hasn't been updated in 35 years. So we're trying to update it to reflect current day prices and not 1990 prices, but that money can be used by the city for infrastructure improvements. And the other piece of this is that we've also included it through the incentive zoning that one of the potential And we have seen this as part of several developments in the area that a big piece of what they do is they do kind of bring the street into a modern street design so either just the pure infrastructure improvements and potentially like implementation of designs at the need to actually do the construction could be part of new structures in the neighborhood. So if, for example, the Walgreens area was redeveloped into something more significant, one of the benefits could be we need to redo this corridor to make it much cleaner and safer for traffic. But one of the flip side issues that Emily or Paolo could explain much better than I Is we can make an assumption that everything that could possibly get built will get built, but we know that that's not going to happen. So that's where the trying to figure out what the traffic impact is without project proposals is kind of a hypothetical. Right.
[Zac Bears]: The condos at the old funeral home.
[Zac Bears]: The other thing I'll point to is, and it's more for the squares. I think I haven't I don't know if I saw them for residential districts, but you've put together some kind of cross sections. Like, what what would. it looked like between Mystic Valley Parkway and High Street under this new zoning. There was also, I think, a couple of references to some of these and then some of the daylight standards to illustrate more. The real problem is it's all layered on top of each other. It's like, what is the daylight standard? What's the dimensional? What's the allowed zone? What's the neighboring condition of the neighboring lots?
[Zac Bears]: Comments made to the City Council, written comments. Each individual Councilor reads them. They can choose to respond individually or not. If someone in their written comment requests that it be read out loud in a meeting and it's not 20 pages long, we generally do our best to read them out at the meeting. If you really are intent on a written comment being read during the meeting, I would recommend including the City Clerk on your comment and mentioning, please read this in the meeting. maybe even emailing the city clerk directly, he can help us just keep that organized as well. But it's a little bit different than how it works for the Community Development Board. Each councilor handles that in their own way.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I would also just add that if people have a question like, what can I do? At least what can I do now? The building department is really responsive on questions like that. And they're the ones who can tell you. They enforce the zoning bill.
[Zac Bears]: And this is one of the really challenging things about parking mandates and minimums is like a lot of what people do, right? You might have a three car, like you can fit three car lengths in a driveway, but in order to, you know, actually you'd have to move a car to get another car out. I'm basically pretty sure that doesn't count as a parking space, right? Yeah, so I believe under the code, and I could be corrected if everyone else can correct me, that you have to be able to get the car in and out independently. So that's what constitutes a parking space. So when you mandate free parking spaces, it's not, oh, the people in the building will work it out, and someone will move out at 8 AM, and someone will move their car back in. You have to be able to independently access that space at any time. So free parking spaces is actually you know, maybe all this square footage in your backyard, and then maybe you're over the open space requirement, or you have to do a permeable service, but it's like, it doesn't account for all of the actual heuristic behaviors that we all do every day, or that we do because we're like, trying to cooperate with each other in society. It's literally just saying, like, you have to be able to get in and out independently, completely, and if you can't do that, mandate it balloons the amount of parking that you might actually think you might be saying that like a new parking space under like building a new parking space under the zoning it's very different than what we might consider as like a parking space that we use in an existing house every day because it doesn't factor in that use it's like you need this person who you know the parking space needs to be accessible at all times it has to be a minimum size and dimension it doesn't matter if you all have smart cars you all have escalades right it's like you have to
[Zac Bears]: uh the 15 the 15 story element where it said other permanent structures 15 story that's the current zoning okay in certain districts and we are not allowing that um there are some things in the approved mystic avenue corridor district between mystic avenue and the highway that i think approach that that are above 10 12 stories with incentives zoning so it's age by right and then
[Zac Bears]: Great. It's hard to remember their name. You've just got to know it.
[Zac Bears]: We've really been trying to iterate through this process and make it better. I personally feel like we're in a much better position than we were a year ago in terms of getting the word out. It is basically really been coordinating that effort. Something I think we can try to maybe do instead of the timeline this way is her top, like, have it be each topic and we go over to the beginning of each meeting. So we can say residential districts. Here's upcoming for residential districts. Square by square, ADU, here's upcoming, and then it's not all mixed together. And that might be easier to read. That might be a different way to format the schedule so that people can know what topic is coming up.
[Zac Bears]: Chronological order by topic might also then spread it, like not have it all. Layered on top of each other.
[Zac Bears]: We've asked the mayor's office and when we say the communication stuff, I want to be the mayor's communication staff because we don't always get to communicate what the council would like to communicate through them and we do not have communication staff. Yes, so we have been asking them to include this in more of the communications. They have included them in more of the communications. We've been working collaboratively with them. They won't have more just that part of the problem. So, like, the mayor's newsletter goes out every 2 weeks. So it's included in the thing that goes out every 2 weeks. But I think we've asked for, can you send out communication specifically about this project? And it's. It's just that we're going to include it in the things we already send out. And that may be a communication strategy. Maybe it goes down in readership the more things they send or something. I don't know what they're trying to balance there. So I don't mean to say that they're just not listening to us, but that's been kind of the response.
[Zac Bears]: I just, I just want to add.
[Zac Bears]: We are working, the Board of Health, the Health Director, you had Yankee passed out. Yes. We're working on that. We passed a new rodent control ordinance three years ago that's now started to build up through fees. Some more funds to to help in addition to what the city budgets were. We had the health budget on Tuesday, health budget on Tuesday. We were talking to the health director about this and we want to further amend the ordinance. There's an issue with the fine structure for the ordinance. We need to make an amendment to it to start finding problem properties as well, which we think will help more. And another piece of that ordinance that went into effect that the health director has been working along is requiring integrated pest management plans for developments over a certain size. The new Davis on building companies project on Fellsway, for example, there's a ton of information that went out they just started. And there's a ton of information about their integrated pest management plan and how that project specifically is going to mitigate rodents. That's not to say that Alicia's not you know there is a climate and regional issue with rats and you know but trying to address the problem properties trying to get people to not overfill the trash cans having the integrated pest management plans for these projects um and hopefully through fees and fine timing more resources for yankee pests to help out on more properties is generally the city's approach um but hopefully with the development some of these things are
[Zac Bears]: Right, we try to also talk more about this than I could part of the news trash contract and part of the new solid waste ordinance we passed is trying to a and the practice where we have open trash in the squares, which has been a huge issue for a long time, but also much more strict requirements on dumpsters and ballers. for private businesses. So that's another way that we're trying to go after this problem. So the DPW Health Planning Council Mayor, we are super aware of the rat problem and we're trying to hit it from every angle.
[Zac Bears]: I will say if we don't have another question, this might be a good... uh wrapping up it's 9 20.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council committee of the whole may 6 2025 is called to order Mr. Clerk, please call the roll Council Council Kelly and is absent.
[Zac Bears]: Also saying, President Bears present by President to us in this meeting is called the order. There'll be a meeting in the Medford city council committee of the whole at 6pm and the city council chamber second floor Medford city hall. Sorry, turn this down a little bit. 85 George B has to drive Medford Massachusetts and via zoom action discussion items 25039 annual budget process for fiscal year 2026 preliminary budget meeting number three. This will be the third preliminary budget meeting of the fiscal 26 budget process the mayor has communicated that the following departments we present Board of Health. facilities, IT, elections, executive and law, and we'll take it in that order. And just a reminder that we have also two budget meetings ahead of us on May 20th and May 21st. And then we also have already had two budget meetings on April 29th and April 30th. So with that, we will start with the Board of Health and Civil Defense. Welcome.
[Zac Bears]: It's on.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, good. I'm happy to just read it out really quickly and then you can add all the lovely details and I'll give you a little prompt when I'm done and then we can go to questions from members of the council. So we have the Board of Health and Animal Control. We had the fiscal 25 budget at 810,978. fiscal 26 proposed $955,579 for an increase of $144,601. And these are fixed costs. There's a significant increase in the employees, and that is because two positions that were 50% ARPA are being added to the general fund. And we also had COLA increases and step increases for our non-union and union employees. The mosquito control and kennel services are up 16,000. That's an increase by 4% for the mosquito control and kennel services have increased with more dogs being held each year. So basically just the three questions are if you wanna explain more about the change in the budget and talk more about what I just kind of did a quick overview of. We'd love to hear your highlights of the past year any plans for the upcoming year. And then finally, you know, what is a priority or a project that isn't funded this year that you'd like to see funded in the future. Okay, I'll turn it over to you.
[Zac Bears]: Great. What were the two positions that came onto the general fund from ARPA?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: My only other question was, is there anything that you'd like to do that wasn't able to be funded this year?
[Zac Bears]: Great, well, thank you. I'm gonna go to Councilor Lazzaro, then Councilor Leming, then Councilor Tseng. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. thing is chicken neutral.
[Zac Bears]: So yeah. Is that funding her position as well?
[Zac Bears]: can send us the language. I don't think anyone's working. I'm not aware of anyone working on it yet.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I know that there's problem properties that really, you know, need to be
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I know you'll be judicious and I know that the fine is certainly the last resort. But you know, if there's someone who can fix it and just chooses not to, that's not being a good neighbor. Yeah. Anything else, Councilor Osanic? I'm good, thanks. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so feel free, you know, whoever needs to be a part of it to communicate with me or with other councillors about getting that done. Perfect, thank you. So I just have a couple questions of my own on the, so we talked about federal funds. I know that nonprofit and philanthropy in general is also in kind of a not great place to be inartful with my words. Are you concerned about any of the private grants that we get not being continued?
[Zac Bears]: I'm guessing that might be language related to the equal rights of all human beings or something like that. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Yeah. Science and humanity. Okay. Is there, have you heard of anything regionally or kind of in the public health world space around trying to join together and try to replace federal funds or work with other cities to apply for grants from larger foundations. Is that work that you're connected with?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, yeah. Did they, I'm trying to remember everything I follow, Is there a new law around public health in the state around funding or is that the legislature passed something around boards of health? What, sorry?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, and that's additional funds. Okay, great. Last few things relatively small just things that you mentioned. The ESOL classes, is that something that you are in partnership with the library on? Yes. Great. And animal control, off-hours calls, do you have any data? And I can ask the chief when we see him, do you have any data on how often are officers responding?
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I guess like some of it, I'm just wondering how much time do we have officers out doing that? How much is that costing us in the long run versus what it would look like to provide additional support in the health department for animal control because that might be one of those things where we're not funding it in one place and we're actually you know, in some ways spending more, I know it's not that simple. You can't just transfer the money like that, but that might be an interesting thing for us to take a look at. So more of a conversation starter than anything else. Okay. Councilor Lemo.
[Zac Bears]: And then we might have it for when we have the meeting with them. Yeah. Great. So it's a motion to request from Chief Buckley and Medford Police data on how much time officers are spending responding to animal control issues outside of city hall hours. Awesome. Any other questions on the health department budget and we'll jump to civil defense and then we can take any questions from members of the public. Seeing none, we'll go to civil defense. We have maybe the first increase I've ever seen. We're going from $9,390 to $9,840 and it looks like We're adding a little bit for supplies, dues, conferences, and travel, and some equipment maintenance. And with that, I'll turn it over to you.
[Zac Bears]: Where do we store those?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Anything else you want to share on the civil defense front?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we have any questions on civil defense from members of the council? Seeing none. Do we have any questions from members of the public or comments from members of the public for the Board of Health or Civil Defense? Seeing none in person and no hands on Zoom. Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: All right, we'll go to facilities. Welcome, thanks for being here. Just gonna quickly read off the budget change, and then you can, I'll read the kind of conversation prompts, and then we can go from there. We have facilities, fiscal 25 budget, 1,838,745. Fiscal 26 proposed, 1,933,393. That's a change of 94,648. There's a cola increase for the permanent employee, and we have some changes and increases in supplier costs for fuel, utilities, janitorial supplies, and increases in our contracts for HVAC and cleaning. So with that, I'll turn it over to you to talk about what the changes in the budget, some of your highlights from the previous year, plans for the year ahead, and what is a project or a priority that's not funded this year that you think needs to be funded in the future?
[Zac Bears]: Just really quickly, is the intent maybe in the future to move them over?
[Zac Bears]: Now we can see everything.
[Zac Bears]: I saw the sign for Kid Ninja the other day. That was the first one I'd seen.
[Zac Bears]: I know that very well.
[Zac Bears]: You're taking a question out of my mouth.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any questions from members of the council for Director Riggi and the Facilities Department? All right, I just have a couple really quick ones. We should think, I mean, I definitely agree the carpets in here are in need of replacement. I don't know what's under them. Do you know what's under them?
[Zac Bears]: I'm hoping it's something good, not something bad.
[Zac Bears]: He thinks it might be hardwood under there. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And I just think, obviously, this is tentative on the decision of the voters, if there's a charter change. we're going to have to change this.
[Zac Bears]: OK, great. We'd love to coordinate on that. I'd love to coordinate that. I'm sure everyone has an opinion. So we'll see if it happens or not. But it's a significant change. I noticed that the utilities actuals are really high.
[Zac Bears]: Is that, in your estimation, is that coming back down?
[Zac Bears]: Are you expecting that we'll be in a deficit for this fiscal year?
[Zac Bears]: Just in the kind of, I know we've been working really hard and the existence of your department is like a shared services consolidated services model, and I know IT has been working on that as well. You mentioned the maintenance staff, that sounds like a good a good change. Is there anything else that's still kind of hanging out there from a maintenance perspective?
[Zac Bears]: Great. And last thing, outside of the HVAC and cleaning, what is funded in the building repair line?
[Zac Bears]: How many of our buildings have elevators?
[Zac Bears]: Police has one. Do the fire stations?
[Zac Bears]: And is that just South Menford or?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. Well, that's all I had seen Matt main counseling.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I think too, there's some functionality elements and obviously design elements of screens. And this layout is actually really difficult for interactive or panel. And it obviously divides the room in a way that you can't use this space as actually.
[Zac Bears]: All right.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. If you wouldn't mind including me in some way so I can convey.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions on facilities? Seeing none, are there any members of the public who would like to make a comment on the facilities budget? Seeing none in the chambers and no hands on Zoom, thank you very much. IT, Information Technology. We have Director Rich Lane with us. Do you have a presentation? Is that why you joined our Zoom? Didn't I have one last year? You did. You know, I never know. We can make you a co host, Mr. Clark. Oh, you already did. Great. And I will just very quickly read off my thing before you start your screen share, but we are looking at a budget increase from 357,000 to 360,000 or so $2,891. and that is there's a COLA increase and a travel reimbursement increase for some travel between the buildings. All right, go ahead. Thank you. Do you think your presentation will cover what's the change?
[Zac Bears]: All right, lovely.
[Zac Bears]: Be careful, they'll start having to do a presentation for everybody.
[Zac Bears]: Oof. Wow. It's rough, isn't it? Third. How long did we make you wait this year compared to last year?
[Zac Bears]: She's a good sport. She always takes the last one, so. And she offered that again. Yeah. I appreciate... We incremental improvement.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. You've been watching, you've been learning, you've been iterating, and I didn't have to ask my questions, so I appreciate it. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Well, thank you. Awesome. Um, Two questions for you. Let's see that there's a shift from data processing to communication applications. I'm guessing that's just a better nomenclature. Yeah, great. I guess it's three questions. The goal completion timelines on the projects that you brought up. Are there many of them in the upcoming fiscal year or many of them out a few years, some span.
[Zac Bears]: I know that you know the clerk's office the planning office sounds like now Board of Health. are working with the building department on the CitizenServe system. I'm guessing you're involved in that?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah, I think that's something you know, we we need to circle back around as well as a council, we had a request out for departments around their fee schedules.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Great. Well, that's all I had. Do we have anything else from the council? Seeing none, you're always allowed to email me and remind me that I offered you to go first. All right. We will go now to executive. Or actually elections is technically alphabetically first, so we'll do elections if that's all right with you, Nina.
[Zac Bears]: That's great. Then we can go to law next and then we can circle back to executive. You know my three questions and you basically answered them for elections, but for law, you know, I would say we do have a bit more or doesn't have questions on elections. Sorry, guys. No, not not in the budget. Okay, well, this is still You can still ask. Yes, you can.
[Zac Bears]: Great, we can move on to the law department. So we do have here some changes. Not a huge change, actually a reduction of $5,000. And yeah, if you do have any highlights, or you wanna talk about the great work that Janice Spencer has been doing, I know, you know, but I do think we're going to have some questions here. There's a solicitor who's been hired and that's the first permanent solicitor in several years. So it's pretty significant change for the office and I would guess for the operations of how the law department and legal integrates with the city. But other than that, I'll turn it over to you and then we can go to questions.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you for the answer. And I think, you know, it would be behoove us to in a couple weeks, two weeks, maybe sit down, I just want to talk through if we're going to change any protocols, if there's things that are going for requests that are going through me to you to KP right now that are going to go through him, and I understand he needs time to sit down. And then also agreed on the workload. And, you know, we have so much going on legislatively. And I know there's all the work that goes on beyond that. And we're in a strange legal world right now. So, but I think it would be, you know, good to talk about what it looks like to have counsel at meetings and visit, you know, just if there's going to be changes to protocol, ideally to, you know, I would hope you would think save you some time, save the mayor some time, now that we have in-house, an in-house director for the law department.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, and I think I do have one specific question. But just before we go there, I think we are sharing the same principle here. And you said it in slightly different words than I would say it. But we aren't able to fund everything we want or need to fund. we don't have the revenue to fulfill the expenses, just fixed cost growth expenses that we have now, nevermind the things that we aren't doing that we know we need to do. And, you know, the override has helped, especially, I think, on the school side with that. But even then, right, we, it's a $7 million override, and it certainly helped DPW, we have a little bit more, like that's one relatively significant new investment that we were able to make on the city side. 500,000 being significant in this context, but maybe not in the greater context of what we need. But even then, the $7 million for the schools, $1.75 million of that was just not cuts happening last year that we covered with ARPA funds, right? So it's $5.25 million, and it's done a lot. But the costs are just escalating so much faster than the revenues, and especially these major drivers with health insurance, the trash contract. And that was a reality. Anyway, it was a reality that was getting better before November or January depending on the date that you want to pick and now it's a reality that's getting worse. it's a really frustrating situation when I like to try to see the budget in an inflation adjusted terms, because I think that's really the best way to understand what are we doing now versus what are we doing before. And after the recession in 2008, the real value of the city budget went down. It was worth, we had a budget that was 10 to 12% less in inflation adjusted terms than it was in 2006 and 2014 or 2015. Slowly under Mary Burke, that started going up. And also, you know, there was this kind of COVID shock. But we actually started doing better a little bit. And then there was this huge supply shock from inflation. And by fiscal 23, we were back down, you know, we'd gotten up to like 5% above fiscal 2006 value by like fiscal 2021. back down to zero immediately in 23. And with the overrides, we only are back on trend. We're at 9%. We're like the budget can do 9% more now than it did in fiscal 2006, which averages out to like 0.45% per year. So it's really, and that's with new growth. I mean, that's, you know, so it's a hugely, We're in a really difficult fiscal environment, and we all have priorities. Assistant City Solicitor is a priority. Assistant City Solicitor just dedicated to the Council to help us work through the significant legislation that we have been working on for several years now would be of huge value. But we also heard from Rich Lane that he could have a department of six more people, and Paul Riggi that he could have a department for four more people. And that's just the people we heard from tonight. We heard that Mary Ann, you know, we heard it from Mary Ann as well, right? Like they have four or five people, maybe even more than that, who could be at risk from state and federal and private grant issues. So we have, you know, again, we're in this position where we have dozens and dozens of positions. And if we brought Barbara Cameron in here, she'd say, well, the Somerville Planning Department is 80 people and ours is I think 12 now maybe, or maybe even less than that. So we have, and those are just the needs on the operating budget. We haven't touched as much that we need to build a new high school and we need to keep our buildings in place. So it just is a really difficult fiscal situation and I'm never going to not say it when it arises and it is important for us to talk about. I do have one question, which is I did notice in our difficult fiscal situation that the solicitor salary dropped a little bit. And I was just wondering if that was just because it was kind of a, hypothetical salary versus real salary?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. And I think, you know, it's this difficult situation where we ask people, there is a lot of history, there is a lot of context, and we ask people to hold two truths simultaneously. And sometimes that can be hard. But Right, if ARPA never happened, then we'd basically be, we would have, we were lucky that the revenue came in higher than it did, because if ARPA never happened, then we wouldn't have accrued these balances. And these balances, while not insignificant, pay for one major capital project if we use it all on that, right? So it's not that, you know, we, It's not that this money is meaningless, it's actually great. Like if ARPA didn't happen, we would be in an even worse situation. Because it happened, I did a spreadsheet where it's basically a 95%. Like if you look at the free cash balance and then the ARPA revenue replacement, it's basically 95% of the free cash balance came out of the ARPA revenue replacement, right? And that's great. That means that we have these funds to do these investments. If it hadn't happened, we'd have basically no free cash and we'd have tight budgets. And your point is well taken. And you know, the more that I've spent time doing this, you know, understanding, we had no idea what was going to happen. So we underestimated revenue pretty significantly. And, you know, the public, the residents, the businesses, did better than we thought, right, like meals and rooms did better and excise tax did better and some of the things that put together local receipts did better than we expected and that's really good. Things were not as bad as we budgeted for. And between that and ARPA, we have a little bit of money to make some forward looking investments on some really urgent issues, but it's not that we have, you know, an ongoing persistent forever, you know, windfall, right? It's not that we're going to get that every year. So it's really interesting and especially right as we now see the tides turn the other direction with finances and with the way that the federal government is acting. We're kind of going to be on the other end of that where we're maybe going to get, you know, hopefully there's not a billion and a half dollar Medicaid cut that is then cutting public health or chapter 90 or whatever. or UGA or Chapter 70, you know, these things that are essential, local aid that comes from those environments. So we benefited from the fact that we were in an environment where the federal government said we need to invest in our communities. And without that, we would have been at a zero basis. And now we're in kind of an opposite position. And so those winds of federal policy are very strong. I'll go to Councilor Leming and then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: You have a response to a specific concern.
[Zac Bears]: I think Councilman was referring to one-time fund requests.
[Zac Bears]: We split our fiscal 26 requests. It's mostly operating, but there were several requests for the use of one-time funds, and I think that's what Councilman was referring to. Okay. So it was one-time funds for a couple of specific one-time only projects.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Just so we don't go down a road.
[Zac Bears]: I'll say this just as one councillor that in a year when operating expenses are not something that we can, we're not looking at significant changes and increases, maybe some of these smaller things that could go, I agree with Councilor Livingston, a long way might be a way to move some things forward. Just two cents. I'm going to go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is that still Councilor Leming? I'd like to avoid just, I mean, I'll recognize you, but Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you. It's not the 28 million it's not nothing but again we have an HVAC project that's worth 30 million so when I said it was not insignificant I, I mean it is something but again it addresses like one capital project if we spend it all on that. And I just wanted to bring this up and again this is just from the ACFR and the budgets and it's not from Bob, but Fiscal, some of the big free cash changes, Fiscal 22 and Fiscal 23, there was a $9.8 million increase, then an $8.7 million increase. But in those years, we used $8.6 million in ARPA and $7.6 million in ARPA. So the actual free cash would have gone if ARPA didn't exist. would just have been 1.2 million in fiscal 22 and 1.1 million in fiscal 23. So when we talk about the city's, you know, underspending, you know, that revenues came in above expectations and spending were below expectations, that only, without ARPA, that only would have meant about a million dollar increase in free cash. So It is, I think we're having a debate about the source of free cash. I think we all agree that it should be used for the purpose of the city in a quick way. It sounds like we have differences on how it should be used or how it maybe should have been used last year. But without ARPA, we'd be looking at $1 million increases, which is, you know, 0.25% of the general fund budget. It's really, not a huge surplus. Go to the Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: If anything else on the law department budget, which is where we started.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing none, we can go to the executive. I'll just quickly read it off. We have the executive, which is the office of the mayor, and we have fiscal 25 budget, 673,270. Fiscal 26 proposed, 693,388. That's an increase of $17,118. It looks like we do have a reduction in the personnel with the special projects coordinator position is gone away. It's seen nods there. The fixed cost growth driving that 17,000 was personnel lines, partially shifting the communication specialist position to the city as well as cost of living and step increases. We do have increase in the C click fix contract, increase in MMA membership dues, and a general inflation cost for costs pertaining to events. And with that, I will turn it over to the chief of staff. Feel free to talk about the change any of your highlights in the office or plans for the year. And I know it's a little tougher because the mayor's office so it's, you know, let's not talk about the whole city, let's keep it keep the scope narrow. And then if there's things that is specifically within the executive, there may be, you know, needs or desires that currently can't be funded. You know, we're happy to hear about that, although we do think this department has a unique level of control over those types of things.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we have any questions about the executive? Seeing none, I do. Just three quick questions. There's a reduction in the stipends. I was just wondering what happened there.
[Zac Bears]: Interesting. Yeah, if there's any more history on that, that would be good to know.
[Zac Bears]: On the Arts Council, I'm just seeing a zero actuals for fiscal 25. And I'm kind of just wondering about general activity of the Arts Council. Has there been difficulties in finding appointees or why the spending is down? Especially at this time, I think it's more important than ever with federal cuts to arts and humanities funding. You know, that's some essential funds.
[Zac Bears]: If we could put in if anyone would move to just request an update on the Arts Council totally hear you that it's an accounting question, but I've also gotten some questions from folks in the community. How can I be more engaged with the Arts Council? And I also know some former members of the Arts Council have had to step away due to just not having the time to be able to put into the volunteer role. So just wondering if any of that is Is that all connected? And if there's some way that maybe the Council could be supportive or get the message out, we need some folks for the Arts Council. And I could be completely wrong too, right? It's just kind of trying to put together some stuff I've been hearing. Is there someone who would make that motion? Councilor Tseng? Thanks. Yeah, just an update on the Arts Council, yeah. Last thing, and if we need to save this for HR, I totally understand, but do you have an update on the classification and compensation study?
[Zac Bears]: Bring it back up. We don't have to put in the report, but if you want to give him a heads up, I'm going to ask the question. All right. Do we have any other questions on the executive budget? Seeing none, do we have any comments from members of the public? second. Um, but this is the second one on the second motion. I think Council on the second.
[Zac Bears]: Could you could you reread the motions?
[Zac Bears]: seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All right. There's no further questions, no comments from members of the public. Is there a motion to refer the questions to the administration, keep the papering committee and adjourn? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to refer the questions keep the paper in committee and adjourn, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Oh, one second. Oh, it's yep. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. On the, is there a motion to join? Can we add motion to join to the last motion? All right. So we're voting on everything, reporting them to the administration we're keeping the papering committee and we're adjourning. Right, I'm just going to call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, by the affirmative to absent motion passes me he's adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee of the whole April 30 2025 is called to order, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll Council Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng, President, President Bears, President five present to absent the meeting is called to order. Action discussion item 25039 annual budget process for fiscal year 2026 preliminary budget meeting to this will be the second preliminary budget meeting of the fiscal year 26 budget process. The mayor has communicated the following departments will be present collector treasurer metric community media parking and veterans will take folks in that order. Just a reminder for folks watching at home. We had a meeting last night where we did an overview of the budget talked about the current projection that the requests from our departments are about a million dollars more than the expected revenue for the city, and that the administration is still working to bring the spending in line with expected revenue, because we are required to have a balanced budget. And that is the job. They're also looking at, hopefully, maybe the revenue side may be going up a little bit, but we don't know. right now. So we have four departments with us tonight. And this we're going to also have additional preliminary budget meetings on May 6th, May 20th and May 21st. We'll hear from the rest of our city department heads before we get a submission from the mayor at the end of the month of the fiscal year 2026 budget. And with that, we will start with collector treasure. We do have Judy with us. And we can. I'll just read off really quickly and then recognize you to, you know, give any narrative that you want to give about your department, about the changes in the budget and your, you know, what's happened this year plans for next year, whatever you'd like to do. But first I'll just say that the fiscal year 25 budget, that's the current year, was $757,494. That's increasing to $780,059. And it's an increase both in the personnel expenses and the ordinary expenses. So it's a total increase of $22,565. And that is happening mostly in the fixed cost growth area where we have contractual raises and step increases in the COLA for staff. And there was a data processing contract increase, the payroll cost increase as well. And that's the vast majority of that increase there. And then there's also one new expense, which is increase needed to attend Mass Collector Treasurer Association classes and conference for recertification. So with that, I will turn it over to the Collective Transfer. We can hear you now.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Great, any questions from members of the council on the collector treasurer budget that we have in front of us? Seeing none, are there any questions from members of the public on the collector treasurer? You can raise your hand on Zoom or approach the podium. All right, thank you for being here.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, wait, sorry, I have a question.
[Zac Bears]: Ah, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Next, we will go to our Medford Community Meeting, I believe. Yep, Medford Community Media. So we have Kevin with us. And as folks know, Medford Community Media produces, it's our public access station here in the city. The budget last year, fiscal 25 was $208,424. The proposed budget is $215,061, an increase of $6,600. And that is almost all going into the step raises and COLA increases for staff and a little bit of cable license negotiations, which is both under the fixed cost growth. These are costs just to keep doing what we've been doing. So with that, And Kevin, tell us if you'd like to share anything more, and then if there's any highlights from the year, any plans for next year, and then we'll go to questions from the council.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do you have any questions for Kevin? Councilor Luzardo?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Great. So see no questions from Mr. Council. I have a couple brief the negotiation of the license. Um, that is how we get our peg fees. And I guess I'm just wondering I see that there was some actual money spent this year that wasn't budgeted for. And I'm just wondering how that process goes and what can we expect? Are we going to maintain the PEG fee? That negotiation only happens once every so often. So I'm just kind of, I think this might be the first time we've done it since I've been on the council. So if you can go into it a little bit.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think that about covers it. Great, thanks, yeah. I'm sure KP's on top of this, but just throw my two cents in at least on, You know, we know that cord cutting is happening and if we maintain the percentage of minutes to maintain the money because of the drop. I mean, I don't know what leverage and leeway is available in the law. I'm sure it's all state law and regulation, but, you know, creative ways to think about you know, maybe people who just are internet subscribers contributing, even if they're not cable, you know, we have so much, we do so much streaming, we have the, you know, system video on demand system. So I don't know if that's allowable or whatever, or if they'd ever accept it as part of it, but, you know, certainly I hope, if not, that we can at least send the message that the law needs to catch up with the times a little bit on this, because I don't think we want, we can't afford to not have public access and provide such a valuable service to the community.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Um, yeah, and if you do hear any more about that from your colleagues in public access and there's value to this council, you know, maybe considering a resolution to ask the state legislature to act. I'm sure we members would consider it. The other thing I just noticed that your equipment other budget has some room left in it and sort of if you're gonna put some POs in before the end of the year.
[Zac Bears]: All right, great. Thank you. I see no further questions from members of the Council. Are there any questions from members of the public, either in person or on Zoom, about Metro Community Media? Seeing none, thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Appreciate it. Thank you, everybody. All right, we're gonna do parking. Welcome. Thank you, hello. So I'm just gonna read really quickly. We had our fiscal 25 budget, $951,741. The fiscal 26 proposed $1,074,840. And that was an increase of $123,099. And it looks like most of that 102,000 is in personnel. And then we had also a 19,000 increase in the amended contract for the pay by phone, license plate recognition technology, increasing contracted monthly fees, increased enforcement activity, and that was all in the fixed cost growth bucket. Correct. Great. So with that, if you want to tell us, talk a little bit more about the budget, tell us you know, accomplishments in the last year, you know, I know you're new in the last year, but sure. And what you're hoping for the next year.
[Zac Bears]: Great. No, that's helpful. One thing we don't get to see here in this picture, and if you don't have the data, you know, we can put in a request or I would put one in, but just, you know, you in some ways are unique as a department that you bring in revenue. And I was just wondering what your annual revenue was or your expectations of it for this year and your expectations of it for next year?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's helpful. I think, you know, for, I know like a big cost driver, this was the first contract for the team in the parking department. So that was really the significant increase, but excuse me, I think just for me, it would be really helpful to have revenue numbers across like the fiscal year, so from July 1, 24 through June 30, 25. And I think it'd be useful for us to, when we talk about your budget, to see that and then maybe also see like the balance outstanding on citations, things like that, because it is really more of a in and out versus, you know, most of the departments are not fee driven or, you know, they're not generating revenue in the same way. And just along those lines, yeah, I just think that would be really helpful for us to be able to see how much money is the department bringing in the fiscal year versus what's going out. And I just remember my other question, are there any expenses that you guys spend that aren't included in this budget? Like, do you have any spending outside of the, like, for example, other departments will get a grant and then you know, that wouldn't be reflected here, like they've paid for something with a grant.
[Zac Bears]: So this reflects like the all the payments for the all the services that we
[Zac Bears]: Great, awesome, yeah, so if you could, you know, get back to us and some of the columns and let us know, you know, what the revenue has been, you know, and it's just helpful, I'm sure, you know, certainly for permits and a lot of people think in normal years and budget season, we think in fiscal year, so it's helpful for us to get it from that July to June timeframe, so we can see the self-sustaining. And I think, you know, for me, what I'm getting at is I'm interested to see that, you know, better enforcement of the parking rules, better permit offering, more fees. Are we talking about moving from self-sustaining to revenue generating? And what does that mean for your department, for the rest of the city?
[Zac Bears]: To date.
[Zac Bears]: And any data you have on that would be interesting.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I mean, I think we, I don't know, Matt, I think would love to see all the data.
[Zac Bears]: No, they're all just mad at me because I'm talking too much. So yeah, no, I think the data is really helpful. And more what I was interested in is like, what's the total outstanding balance of all the citations that people haven't paid? You know, that that's of interest to me, because it's essentially a something we should be getting.
[Zac Bears]: I can tell you that the University of Massachusetts got me a couple of years with that.
[Zac Bears]: I've had to pay my tickets to get my parking permit and I think that's just fair.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. Thank you. Would someone be willing to make my request in the form of a motion for the committee report? Thank you. Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming, I guess. We're a little punch drunk here. I apologize.
[Zac Bears]: All right, do we have any further questions on the parking department? Members of the Council, seeing none, online or in person, do we have any questions from members of the public, either in person or on Zoom? Seeing none, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. Yeah, and I think, you know, we're looking at the budget, so sometimes Sometimes we talk more, sometimes we talk less, but I also know that like the folks out on the street have sometimes a very difficult job and folks are not always happy to get a parking ticket or have to pay a parking ticket. And, you know, we've heard a lot about that. So I hope that maybe some of that is easing up as the new department has, people have settled in in the city with the new department and, you know, just want to If you could take that back to the team and obviously to yourself that we understand sometimes that it's a really difficult experience and we are really thankful for all the work that you're doing.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Just on the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, by the affirmative, two absent, motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: All right, Veterans Services. We have Director Shaw with us. I'll start reading. Oh, you're already here. Last year, fiscal 25, we had a budget $444,603.44. This year, we're looking at a $448,716, an increase of $4,112.56. And that is step increase and COLA increase and clerical contract increases, all fixed cost growth. And with that, if there's anything more you'd like to say about the specifics of the budget, any highlights from the past year, any exciting plans for next year, the floor is yours.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. I really wanna just start by thanking you for your resourcefulness and your dedication to our veterans in the community. I know you do a lot with the budget that you have and then you go and above and beyond to try to bring in whatever resources are possible for our veterans. And it's just really great to hear. I appreciate, I love hearing the, what have we done? What are we doing list? Because I think it really just shows things that maybe don't show up in budget line items or don't show up anywhere else other than you being able to tell everyone what's happening. So thank you so much for everything that you've been doing and what you're going to be doing for the next year. I'll go to Councilor Leming, then Councilor Lazzaro, then Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: You can just put a resolution on also, if you wanted to talk about in residence services. I think we don't need a motion. I was all right.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yep. And put on a resolution if you want to talk about it in Resident Services. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further questions or discussion from members of the Council? Seeing none, are there any questions or discussion from members of the public, either in person or on Zoom? Seeing none, Hold on a second. Thank you. Out of order. Thank you. Director Shaw for being here. Really appreciate it. And, you know, feel free to be in touch with us anytime about any way that we can help. Awesome. Thank you. Thanks. All right. Is there a motion to report the questions and motions out to the administration to keep the paper in committee and adjourn? On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Levee. Well, you know. We are a deliberative body and we shall be deliberate. We're deliberating. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Two absent. Motion passes. And the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just think it's worth thinking about a naming convention that doesn't use the same words to mean different things in different districts. I don't know exactly how we would do that. But, oh, sorry. I'm just saying I think it would be worth trying to consider a naming convention that doesn't use the same words to mean different things in different parts of the city, because I think that's something we're trying to get away from. I don't know what that naming convention would be, but I do think it raises a point that if you're looking at the map, I just think it's gonna make it hard for the map to be intuitive to the average person looking at it.
[Zac Bears]: Are there more comments.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Thanks for the comment, and I think this is a really good question to illustrate what happens through zoning and what happens through other processes. So the zoning for the lots between City Hall and the highway and the lots south of City Hall we're going to, you know, there's going to be a zone there. It's going to indicate what the property owner could conceivably build based on the zoning code. But in this case, the property owner is the city of Medford. And we're currently going through a process. We had a request for proposals for redevelopment of the city owned lots surrounding City Hall. And there's information about that on the city website. And more information to come from that, but definitely one of the main considerations was what does the parking demand for the square look like? And how do these lots play into that? Certainly, you know, there are a number of parking related factors included in the RFP, and that would be included in any award to anyone who submitted a proposal to work with the city for redevelopment, such as the senior center parking, it was mandated that that be preserved. And looking at the parking needs related to Chevalier and also related to new construction. So, but that's actually going to happen in this case through the city working with a group to do that redevelopment. And then, for example, if there was a redevelopment by a private owner of private lots, parking would be discussed through the site plan review process through the Community Development Board. And I think it's just a great way to show that, you know, the zoning is one piece of the larger puzzle around what our city and community looks like. And there are other processes where the actual specifics of what's getting built, where, where is the parking, how many units, you know, there's so much more public process that happens after zoning is passed before anything gets built. All that to say, in this specific case, the city's already doing that work. And parking has been a major part of that discussion. and I'll throw in my two cents on it, which is I would love for us to try to figure out how to better utilize the large and mostly empty Atrius Health parking lot that already exists right across the street from City Hall. So I'm hopeful that we can do that as part of this process that the city's working through. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to apologize. We take as long as we need. We shouldn't rush anything. The purpose of scheduling the 7pm is that if we had finished by 7pm, we could start the next meeting at 7pm, because you can't backdate a notice. So if we had said eight o'clock, and we'd finished at 730, everyone would have been waiting around for 30 minutes. But the purpose of the back to back six to seven is that if the if this meeting needs to continue, it can go as long as it needs to go. And then we can start the next meeting. So I just want everyone to, you know, we're, we're gonna take this deliberately.
[Zac Bears]: I believe, yeah, we should. We should do everything that's on the presentation.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have sections, Paula and Emily for this, or could you just reiterate the development standards piece again and how that would integrate with the zoning. So like that. Yeah, and I guess my point being that like the by right. you're not just gonna be able to put 100% lot coverage, seven-story building by right on these lots. There's gonna be dimensional standards, development standards, parking requirements that are going to impact what is actually buildable on each of these lots. And given the odd lot shapes, lot sizes, probably significant lack of ability to combine existing lots, existing, you know, you have two, you know, two of the most significant areas are owned by nonprofit religious organizations and institutions, you're not actually going to see, you know, St. Ray's get replaced by a seven plus two. So I just think it's important, again, to reiterate how zoning fits into the larger context of construction and development processes. My point being, you know, if you're on If you're looking at the large lots on on circuit or Bauer, there's going to be some limitations based on the development standards and the width of the street and the sunlight and the light. That means you're not going to see, you know, it's probably going to be three, four or five story building, which I think is great. And if they could make it stylish and make it fit the daylight to have a piece of that be seven stories, I think that's great. But I just think it's important. I think people see this map and they say, okay, you know, you start to say this is what is this going to look like? What is this actually going to look like versus how it integrates with actually the full written text of the zoning and what's possible given the size of the lots and the development standards that are being incorporated. So that was more of a comment, but I think also a jumping off point at least.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no, I spoke to that, and I don't know if Director Hunt maybe talk to anybody else about it. And we did receive a couple emails from people who live there. I didn't know if you guys were going to go back and review it or not. But I personally, just given the conditions there, don't think it should be included. It is really difficult to access. And when there was the fire at the Canal Street, you know, it's still, you can still see the fire damage when you're coming over the Boston Ave bridge, and there's been a ton of dispute building Commissioner Fire around the reconstruction of that. So it's essentially a dead end street that already has a lot of housing on it. And I know that the fire department was concerned with even reconstructing the number of units in that existing structure. It's a pre-existing non-conforming structure that maybe had illegal unpermitted work done to it to add illegal units. So it's kind of a complicated situation, but there was a lot of concern about fire safety. And just given for me, given that it's on the other side of the railroad tracks, I think there's a cohesion element as well.
[Zac Bears]: On the Walgreens side of the street, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: And don't worry about the time where, since we're going back and forth here, um, it's, uh, It is actually, I think, is it MBTA owned privately operated or just privately owned?
[Zac Bears]: That's better. That's better.
[Zac Bears]: I was just going to quickly add to that. We've talked about all the different things that constrain, you know, who owns what and the lot size and all of that. But, and you guys correct me on the specific numbers if I get them wrong, but I think the zoning that's been in place for at least 25 or 30 years, technically allows a 14 story hotel to be built in West Benford Square right now. And it's never happened. So it's that kind of, you know, thinking around it too. We're actually in some ways would be reducing what's allowed in, you know, The new zoning would not allow a 14-story hotel to be built in West Medford Square, right? But even though it has been allowed for a really long time, no one ever wanted to do that or tried to do that. So we've had a lot of moments in this meeting talking about how zoning is just one piece of a big puzzle. I hope we get some of it before you're gone, though.
[Zac Bears]: I was just going to add that the bus network redesign, they justified their service changes based on demand. So just to back up Paola's point further.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Just so I understand it, it's mostly around the historical conversions. So we're in an NR3, which allows a historical conversion for, and you'd have a protected ADU. That would allow a protected ADU on that property as well because it's in the NR3. Yeah. And then you'd have a local bus. I support special permit. I think this is framed as, do we want second at all? Do we want it by special permit? Do we want to allow higher maximum lot size for like a large carriage house? Is that what the slide means?
[Zac Bears]: OK. I just wanted to make sure. I didn't want to misinterpret it. Yeah, I wonder if I can see where it starts. I think in general, the genesis of the state law and the ADU protection and all of this I mean, the intent is good, but I think it's structurally confusing. I think it's intended to say, we need more units, and this is a way to do it without the state changing Chapter 48 to say, you have to allow two units everywhere. It's a little bit of an end run, and I think it creates, for us, there's just some negative externalities here. And I think mostly what I'm getting at is around the historical conversion. I think we're creating a thing with historical conversion that adds like a third layer to the whole problem where it's, how do you know how many units can be allowed on a lot? And I'm just wondering if there's a way to Could we say that we would allow a special permit, a second ADU by special permit, but not if it's a historic conversion or something like that? So it's a little bit simpler for people to understand, especially when it comes to like, you'd have a principal structure, then a historical conversion, then the ADU, and then the second special permit ADU. I just think it adds, it's again, one of those things where the layers are really stacked on top of each other.
[Zac Bears]: I think I very quickly used the word carriage house. Yeah, carriage house is exactly. Garage, garage is what I meant.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Yeah. And I think my question is just like, there's probably not a lot of properties with supplies, right? And that's maybe not worth our time at this point to really get into it that far, but you have a single family, it's NR3, you have historic conversion, it's of significant size, significant lot size, so you can put four units inside the structure, then you could add the protected ADU, then you could have a special permit ADU detached or attached, and it just, yeah, so.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just thinking if they're doing it all, they're probably doing it all at once, so they probably are going to maximize.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. OK, thanks.
[Zac Bears]: All of the parking requirements are for off-street parking. it would be on the lot itself. So the private way, public way, it doesn't matter. It's about the parking on the lot. So whatever the parking mandate is that the city imposes, you know, if one per whatever, I think we have a one per 80, it would be off street parking. So that's my... Paula might have a...
[Zac Bears]: It is within the authority of the city to define the parking mandates.
[Zac Bears]: It can't be, but we can make it lower. We can be more permissive, we can't be less permissive, I think is the discussion that we previously had. So I just wanted to add that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. We couldn't say it's two, but we could say it's zero.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not putting that forward as an idea. I just want to make sure when we get to the parking that we have the scope of the authority. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: If you could just, I was just seconding, and if you could just go to the upcoming meetings before we vote and adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I just had one request. I know we make a lot of requests of you. Could we do a May and June version of this. And like, this is great slide to show everything that's happened before. But we're getting crowded.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, exactly. Right. Yeah, just the going forward, I think would be helpful. And we can get that up on the zoning website. And in addition to people seeing all the things we've done up to this point, but we have a lot. And we don't even have the June dates on there. So for the council, for this committee and the council. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I thought everyone was saying I was the problem, and I thought you had the solution.
[Zac Bears]: Eighth regular meeting Medford City Council April 2025 is called to order Mr. please call the roll Council Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng President Bears present six present one absent please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records. Is there a motion to table Councilor Scarpelli's resolution until he's present? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to table 25062 to the next regular meeting, seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. We have two papers under suspension. Is there a motion to take papers under suspension? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to take papers under suspension, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed motion passes 25068 offered under suspension by Vice President Collins be it resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate Metro family network director Marie Cassidy on her retirement and extend our deepest gratitude for over 30 years of service to the community Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you and you did not cut I'm stage managing Medford kids are going last on this one.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for saying yeah and I'll just add director Cassidy's 30 years, pretty much coincide with how long I've been in Medford, and I know a lot I didn't move here till I was four. Don't tell anyone. I know a lot of the young people who I grew up with built lifelong connections and their parents built lifelong connections in community through the MFN. And I know parents who are still involved in supporting the MFN whose kids are 30, 35 years old, because it's so valuable to them. So, you know, when I think of Maria, I think of words like joy and wonder and community, and most importantly, just an incredible laser focus on the kids in this community having really happy experiences and moments and building community together. And I don't think she'll ever really know how important the teddy bear picnic is. So with that, I'll just leave it there. Is there a motion? on the motion to approve by Councilor said seconded by seconded by Council is our all those in favor. Opposed motion passes 25069 offered under suspension by Councilor Callahan, whereas the Chevrolet theater is a historic thriving cultural center used by our residents which brings people together from all over greater Boston, be it resolved that the city council invite Cindy Watson from friends and friends of the Chevrolet to attend the public works and facilities meeting to inform our community about the state of the Chevrolet theater.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Any further discussion? Councilor Leming?
[Zac Bears]: The clerk's informing me that he did see Chris Kristofferson. On the motion of Councilor Callahan to refer to public works and facilities seconded by, seconded by Councilor Collins all those in favor. Opposed motion passes. Records records of the meeting of April 8th were passed to Councilor Collins. Councilor Collins, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: All right, on the motion to table to the next regular meeting, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Records of the special meeting of April 15th were passed to Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Lazzaro, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by? seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. I report the committees is there a motion to join on the motion of Councilors saying to join the reports of committees seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan all those in favor. All the any post motion passes. 25048 offered by President Bears this is committee the whole April 8. This was on parking, the new parking director, also on the GLX parking zone, and a potential change the parking ordinance. Councilor Collins, is there anything you'd like to add. You can say no. That's our columns.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Could you forward me the ordinance for our next regular meeting agenda? Thank you. Councilor Collins planning and permitting committee April 9.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Leming, Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, April 15th.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And we have community the whole April 16th. This was the CDBG public meeting discussing the CDBG proposals for community organizations. And we have a hearing on that in just two agenda items. So we will be taking action on that tonight. Is there a motion to approve the joint reports? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve, seconded by. Seconded by council Lazzaro, all those in favor. Opposed, motion passes. Hearings, 25036, petition to amend the special permit 282, Mystic Ave. I'm declaring this continued public hearing open. The petitioner has requested that we further continue this to our next regular meeting. With that, is there anyone who'd like to comment on this at this time in the public hearing? It will be continued to May 13th and there will be further opportunity to comment. Seeing none, I'm declaring the public hearing this temporarily closed to be continued. Is there a motion to continue? On the motion to continue the public hearing to May 13th by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 25060, submitted by the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability, Community Development Block Grant Action Plan for Fiscal 26. Notice of a public hearing the Medford City Council will conduct a public hearing. Sorry about that. wrong sheet. Legal Notice City of Medford Community Development Block Grant Program five year consolidated plan program your 2025 annual action plan and citizen participation plan. Public hearing a public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council on Tuesday, April 29 2025 at 7pm the purpose of this public hearing will be to invite the general public and representatives of public service agencies to express comments regarding the city's five year consolidated plan and annual action plan, and on the city's housing and community development needs and development of proposed activities. The consolidated plan includes broad goals and objectives to address priority needs with resources available from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, including a five-year strategy for use of Community Development Block Grant CDBG funding for program years 2025 to 2029. The action plan contains the proposed use of CDBG funds for the program year, which extends from July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026, program year 2025. The hearing will also invite public comments regarding the city's updated CDBG Citizen Participation Plan, detailing opportunities for public participation, and the development of plans and reports related to its CDBG funding. The Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability will be requesting that the Medford City Council authorize Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, official representative of the City of Medford, to submit the Program Year 2025 to 2029 Consolidated Plan, the Program Year 2025 Annual Action Plan, application for funds and all other assurances and certifications to HUD, The city is applying for an estimated $1,384,050 in block grant funds for program year 2025. Funds are estimated in details on the increasing or decreasing of proposed activities and budget. Once HUD has notified, the city of its final allocation can be found within the draft annual action plan. If you need reasonable accommodation to attend or participate in this hearing, please contact Nicholas Karinje at email nkaringe at medford-ma.gov or by phone at 781 3 9 3 2 4 3 9. All right. Um, is there anything that Laurel you'd like to add? Uh, before we open the public hearing?
[Zac Bears]: Great. I'm going to open the public hearing unless Councilor Collins, do you have a question for Laurel? I'm going to open the public hearing to anyone who'd like to speak in favor, opposition or otherwise has comment on the city's action plan, consolidated plan and any other CDBG related matter. Public hearing is open. You can raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium if you have a comment on the CDBG action plan. And Laurel, I'm assuming that the Office of Planning Development Sustainability is in support.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Just gonna give it a second. Seeing no hands on Zoom and no one in person, I'm declaring the public hearing closed. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Can you submit that motion to the clerk? Thank you. A motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? I'm seeing Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: The motion passes Councilor Collins if you could take the chair.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Resolution is relatively self-explanatory. I know we have some residents here tonight. Also notice I'm taller than Kit. But we were all surprised, I think it's fair to say, pretty much everyone on the city side of things and local residents by the relatively quick construction, installation and operation of a new platform at West Medford commuter rail station. I will say that it's a long time coming to provide accessibility for all residents to the commuter rail at the West Medford stop. But I certainly didn't receive any communication about it before it was put in place. And what we're seeing is that there are negative impacts on the surrounding residents from loud sounds on the announcement system and very bright lights at times when there are not even trains running, nevermind. You know, it's not just peak hours it's happening. These reported to be happening all night sometimes. We have constant communication issues with Keolis and the MBTA as well as DCR and MassDOT and MWRA and all the other state agencies who have infrastructure in the city of Medford, but are not particularly responsive to residents or local government. So, we have some, I know there's some residents present who live close by to the new platform, who are facing negative impacts, and I would move that we submit this resolution to kill us and the MBTA, as well as the mayor and director Blake, so that they can use it. in any of their own communications with the relevant parties to push them to act to improve the conditions of the platform. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Collins. Thank you to the local residents who came out tonight and who have been emailing Keolis and the city and collecting all this information and buying light meters and doing all of the work that I think, you know, really should be on Keolis as our privatized commuter rail operator, making a profit off of our public infrastructure to do. That's an aside that I will now stop but You know, we have had constant issues. Like, I hear the desire for a guarantee. I want a guarantee. We all want a guarantee. We spent six months with your neighbors on the other side, on the Bower Street side with the rail ties issue when they were re-putting the new rail ties in and like off-gassing. And it's just a horrible situation. That was horrible too. And it's like, we're back here right again with Keolis and the T both. Um, you know, we kept on them for that. We're going to keep on them for this. It really sucks. That's really mostly what I'm saying. It's just, it really sucks. And we're going to keep on them, but I don't know, um, how fast they're going to move on it. I think the suggestion of like, let's shut this off until we get it. Right. But the most, most frustrating part for me of what you were saying is just the change. Like you can't even expect, or you, you had a change, like things got better and then they got worse again. And that's kind of the, You know, I'm sure it's not intentional or whatever, but it's a gaslighting right like you're now not secure in your own home about like what to expect from day to day, week to week. I am hopeful that we can try to communicate with them more immediately to just at least go back to the conditions that were a little bit better and then actually engage with you. But I, you know, mostly I'm kind of just being bad news, Zack, and just saying it's really tough to engage with them. And we've had a lot of problems with Keolis along the line for a while. So we're here, we're going to keep fighting. And it's really frustrating so many just so many problems coming out of them. So thank you for advocating on behalf of your neighbors and being here tonight, and for all the information you've given us to try to help. And to Jen's point around Medford-Tufts, I do believe we're getting a redesign of that section of Boston Avenue because of the Tufts Dormitory project that's going to get rid of the the concrete, the strange curb, not curb thing that blocks access to cars and buses. So that's still, it's going to be some time, but I think the Medford Tufts issue is going to get somewhat worked out, at least in terms of access. I'm not sure about the bus stop placement. And just wanted to put that information out there. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to thank Councilor Lazzaro for her first term energy, and I hope it is always our all terms energy eventually. Point taken.
[Zac Bears]: Communications from the Mayor, 25061. Submitted by Mayor Marianne Legault-Kern. Request for food truck permits for trolley dogs, May through July at Hormel Stadium. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, on behalf of the below entity, I respectfully submit to the Medford City Council the following request for a food truck permit in the City of Medford. In addition to City Council approval, vendors are required to adhere to Health Department food and safety requirements. Business name, trolley dogs. dates and time 510 25 516 25 6725 621 25 and 7 625 4pm to 7pm location Hormel Stadium 90 Lucas Street, Massachusetts, and event. uh, ultimate Frisbee, uh, Boston glory games about the event, ultimate Frisbee association, tournaments and games for players and spectators. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely bringing the live up here in mayor. Do we have any discussion by members of the council? And we also representative of Boston glory here, seeing no immediate questions from members of the council. We'll go to Peter from Boston glory, Peter.
[Zac Bears]: Fantastic. Yes. And if there's anything else you want to add about the, the ultimate Frisbee association and what you guys do, we're happy to lend you our platform for this minute or two.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. Thank you so much. I'm going to Councilor Callaghan.
[Zac Bears]: Fantastic. All right. And the clerk enjoys it as well. He tells me some things when we're standing up here. I'm never sure if he wants me to say it or not, but in this case, I know that he enjoys Frisbee. Any further discussion by members of the council? Any further comments by Peter or any members of the public on this matter? Seeing none, on the motion to approve by Councilor Khan, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Thank you all very much. 25064 submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Appropriation of free cash and rescission of loan order. One second here. Going through all these food permits. There we go. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council regarding free cash appropriation and loan order rescission on school HVAC infrastructure and roof bonds I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body appropriate $5 million and zero cents of free cash for the purpose of replacing boilers and cooling systems with new condensing boilers and heat pumps including associated automated controls and structural and architectural work electrical work and weatherization at the McGlynn School and Andrews School, and the acquisition and installation of solar panels and a new roof or roof repairs at the McGlynn School, including the cost of planning, design, architecture, and engineering services, and all other costs incidental and related thereto. And rescind the $5,000,000.00 cent loan order under Resolution 24510, which was approved in the third reading at the City Council's January 14, 2025 meeting and closed as an original copy of the loan order. This appropriation of free cash will allow the city to reduce the amount to be permanently borrowed in the future to save an estimated $300,000 per year in the FY 27 budget, and for the term of the loan, the total project cost of $30,775,000 without a free cash appropriation would add to the city budget an estimated $1.834 million per year for 30 years. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Brian Olingo, current mayor. Just gonna say two things before we move on. This, number one, We do have eligible for third reading the loan order for the rest of this tonight, so maybe we take that up right after this so that we can have the discussions together and we don't have to come back and provide the context again. The other thing I want to say is, when we were talking about a question six in. last November. This is exactly the reason why question six was on the ballot. You can see that a project of this guy size about $30 million, which is what the new fire station was about expected to cost has an impact of 1.834 million on the city's annual operating budget. So that is, you know, That is what we lost with the loss of that. The city budget, as we discussed earlier at our committee of the whole meeting, continues to be very tight. If the overrides hadn't passed, we would have been talking about drastic and significant cuts across the school system and our city departments. And with the projects needed in our schools, the city budget, as it currently stands, is facing a nearly $2 million annual impact from a project of this size and scale. You know, we're going to talk about the specifics here, but that's the larger context of the essentially continuing tight budgets and significant needs of our community when it comes to capital improvements. With that, just talking specifically about using free cash instead of the loan order to save an estimated $300,000 per year in debt repayments. Is there anything you'd like to add, Director Dickinson, and we also have Superintendent Cushing and Brenda Pike as well, and maybe some folks from the design team, I'm not sure. Oh, there you go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Dickinson. I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: We do have the superintendent and Brenda if you want to. We had a presentation when we did the loan order on April 8th. that the total project cost was $30,775,000. Is it just an updated number from what originally it was? There were some factors that went into it that Peter and Brenda, Bob, obviously, if you want to go first, but there. That's fine.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we want to do a Peter and Brenda?
[Zac Bears]: December yeah I think if you wanted to speak to it really quickly Brenda thank you when you came to us in early April there had been some escalations that required the total I'll let you speak to it. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Any further questions for Director Dickinson? Seeing none, and just so I understand, oh, you want to go, Councilor Collins? No. I just had one question. So just so I understand the mechanics of it, we approved the loan order, which allowed the spending to start on procuring supplies for that $5 million pre.
[Zac Bears]: There's not going to be any delay or pause in the project by moving from the loan order to the free cash is essentially what my question is.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing no further questions from the council, is there a motion on the floor? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: for first reading a motion to this is an appropriation for cash. It's not doesn't require multiple readings. So it's a motion to approve the request for appropriation from the mayor and the rescission of the loan order by Vice President Collins, seconded by Council Zorro. Any further discussion on that motion by members of the council? Seeing none, is there any discussion on the motion by members of the public? I see one person here in the chamber. If there's anyone on Zoom who'd like to speak, please raise your hand and we'll go to you next, but we'll start at the podium. Name and address for the record. And you'll have three minutes plus as much time as it takes to get the timer.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, I think. you know, to the point, and I was gonna bring this up as we moved through this, the distinction that we were making, or at least that I was making, was not between long-term and short-term needs, it was between recurring expenses and one-time expenses. And, you know, where free cash is a fund that happens because either the city raises more money than it expected, or spends less money than expected, or in some years, maybe both, It's not reliable recurring revenue, so it shouldn't ever be used to fund recurring expenses that need to be funded on an ongoing basis. And what we're talking about here, and with the paper that the commenter mentioned, are one-time capital expenses. And that's what reserve funds should be used for. Not things like the best teachers contract that the city's ever seen that was funded by the new recurring revenue from the question seven and eight override. Do we have any further discussion by members of the public on the appropriation of free cash for the HVAC program at the Andrews and see none. We have the motion from Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro to approve the appropriation Mr. Please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Vice Chair Leming, Councilor Leming,
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to take paper 25050 off the table by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Aye. All those in favor? All opposed motion passes to 5050 loan order 25 million 775,000 school HVAC infrastructure and roof bonds supplemental in city council April 8 2025 approved for first reading advertised April 18 2025 Boston Herald in city council April 29 2025 eligible for third reading. This is the loan order we just talked about. Is there a motion on the floor? Motion to approve. On the motion to approve for third reading by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Is there any further discussion? Oh, by Vice President Collins. Is there any further discussion? Seeing no discussion by Councilors, we will go to discussion by members of the public. You can either come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. I do see Mr. Castagnetti, Mr. Castagnetti, I will request you to unmute and you will have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: You are on, yes. And this is about the HVAC loan order.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. Definitely agree that it's a significant number and a major impact on the city budget. I can point you towards the, I think this is our fourth meeting between a regular meeting and city council committee the whole maybe our fifth meeting where we've heard from Assistant Superintendent Cushing and Planner Brenda Pike and the team working on this about why this project is necessary and what they've done, which is extensive work to mitigate the cost and be cost conscious for our residents. So, you know, there's a lot of stuff in the record, meeting recordings, meeting minutes and documentation on the school's website and on the council's website that I just want to point residents towards to better understand the project more than what we've talked about tonight.
[Zac Bears]: I'll go to Councilor Leming and then Councilor Callahan. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah. And we are, um, I'm hoping we will have that be part of our meetings on the 20th or the 21st, at least a primer. And just to add to that, I think the fiscal 23 to fiscal 28 CIP, the capital improvement plan or investment plan, or can I remember exactly what it is? I think that had a over a hundred million dollars just in over those five years. So, you know, and I'm adding to your point, uh, We could spend all free cash on this project or 30 million in that CIP and we'd still need to come up with the other 70 million through borrowing or some other means so it really just again speaks to the scope and scale of the capital need, nevermind the operating need which we're also talking about. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, and I think, you know, just to be brief, Certainly whoever came up with the term free cash didn't expect it would be interpreted the way that I think most people interpret it. But this may be another way of getting at the point that Councilor Leming, Councilor Callahan and Councilor Collins and every person on this council has tried to make at various points, which is free cash is cash that is, it is a reserve. It's a reserve fund, and it is free for us to use when we have an unexpected expense or an emergency, compared to our city budget, which is not free for us to use because it is tied up in being used for all of the things that the city does all year, all month, every month, all year, day in and day out. Um, and whether that further elucidates the idea that you know the difference between the operating budget and a one time expense or a recurring expense and an emergency expense and, um, you know, that's the difference. Fundamentally, it is a reserve fund that the city has built up over time to address emergencies and one time needs. And, you know, to the point that was made, right? Yes, 30 million is a lot of money, but it would cost a lot more than that to build a new school. The new K-8 complex is in the 100 to 200 million, the new high school, 300 to 500 million, which is something the city is looking at. And, you know, just to round it out, there is a plan here. This is the plan to have a healthy middle school and K-8 complex at the Andrews and McGlynn, for a long time, and Brenda and Peter and the team and Bob have worked, and everyone else have worked really hard on that. We are applying for state funding for both a new high school and for similar projects at the Brooks, Roberts, and Missittuck Elementary Schools to keep those buildings healthy and teaching students for decades to come. And again, that's just the schools. Hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm gonna go to assistant superintendent. One second. Oh, yeah, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Superintendent. We have a motion from Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming to approve with a second by Vice President Collins. Do we have any further comment by members of the public? There is a hand on Zoom, but that person's already spoken. So if anyone who hasn't spoken yet would like to speak, I'll take you first. Seeing none, we'll go back to Mr. Castagnetti. Andy, you're gonna have one more minute.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's the affirmative. One absent. The motion passes and the loaner is approved for third reading. 25 065 submitted by memory and I'll go current Community Preservation Committee appropriation request regarding affordable housing trust additional fiscal 25 funds, dear President Bears and members of the council on behalf of the CPC I request respectfully request and recommend your honorable body approve the following recommendation of the CPC. requesting the appropriation of $50,000 from the CPA General Reserve to the Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund to provide additional funding to expand their fiscal 25 development awards budget. Project will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund. The CPC recommendation letter is attached and incorporated. CPA manager Teresa DuPont and representatives from the Medford Affordable Housing Trust are in attendance. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted. Brianna Lago-Kern, Mayor. And I will go to Teresa DuPont.
[Zac Bears]: Not seeing Lisa, so if you wanna go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion by members of the Council? Is there a motion? Motion approved by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor, everyone, Councilor Leming. Is there any further discussion by members of the public? Seeing none, either in person or on Zoom, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. 25.066 submitted by Mayor Brianne Legault-Kern. Appropriation of free cash. Dear president, mayors and city councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves the following free cash appropriations in the total amount of $229,766.01 on the following items. 198,000 for security upgrades at MPS buildings, which will be used to increase the total down payment made on a $1,843,038 $38.74 project, which will be paid over five years. I believe that also gets us some additional matching and grant funding or assist us on that in some way. And $31,766.01 for the following claim settlements, Bay State Insurance Company, Geico Safety Insurance, Geico Arbella Insurance, these are on behalf of Etrado, Dino Popolo, John Petroni, Salem Woldemariam, and Lauren Woldemariam, and Anthony Milano. Balance of free cash as of the writing of this letter is $27,606,069.12. Attorney Tom Lane from KP Law will be available to answer any questions on the claim. I see Tom is here with us on Zoom. Thank you for your kind attention to these matters. Respectfully submitted, Brianne Olingo, current mayor. Do we have any questions on The security system, we still have the assistant superintendent with us. Or do we have any questions on the claim settlements? We do have legal counsel, Tom Lane with us. Seeing none, I have a question for Dr. Cushing. Just if you could give us a little bit more info on the security upgrades project and how this free cash funding helps out with the down payment and all that.
[Zac Bears]: I think you stated it well. And no, and I really appreciate the detail. I know 198,000 seems like why are we doing it. But I know there's a lot more behind a lot of the work that goes on in the city, especially when it comes here and doesn't have all the context so want to thank you. Again, for this project, for the HVAC projects getting off the ground, and I can personally commit to you, the day after the new MHS debt exclusion passes, we'll start calling them the old schools. And then maybe they'll get the attention and understanding that they deserve. Or at least I'll call them that. I hope people will follow me on it. But thank you, Peter. It's really, you know, always great to have you with us.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Dr. Cushing. All right. Any questions for Tom Lane from KP Law? I just had one, Tom, if you could just quickly go through, it looks like basically you were able to negotiate payments from the city that are less than what the insurance companies paid out to their clients. If you want to talk about that a little bit more, and I'll unmute you.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Thank you. And, you know, if you can't speak to this I understand and we can. I'll set a question myself to the administration. I'm just wondering why we're paying these out of free cash and not out of the operating budget line for for settlements.
[Zac Bears]: Great, we're gonna have a law department budget hearing in a week or two, so I'll bring it up then. But thank you for the answer, that's helpful to understand. Any further discussion by members of the council? Any discussion by members of the public, either in person or on Zoom? You can approach the podium in the chamber or raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Seeing no further discussion, members of the Council, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, affirmative one absent the motion passes. Thank you, Councilor and Dr. Fisher.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Two, five, zero, six, seven, Engineer Wartella. Can you tell us about the flood ordinance update? I can read more if you want, or I can just let you talk about it.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just going to add that we have a letter for you from you in our packet. And this was reviewed by Attorney Jeffrey Blake from KP Law, and you are available to speak to our questions. So I will go to Councilor Callahan and Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: So just to echo, we're still doing science on this one? Yes. Okay, just checking. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: And there's a motion to approve the first reading the ordinance amendments, and this is just ordinance amendments right. Okay, by councils are seconded by Councilor Callahan. I have a question or two. Almost done. The. Is this. I'm not 100% sure how this works. Is this about flooding, like from the river, or from a storm event or does it address like flooding from our antiquated infrastructure under our roads?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And basic, I guess, and you may not be hydrologist or exactly whatever expertise is needed to answer this question, but when you looked at it, is the situation getting worse? Is more of the city floodable? Is there a climate impact related to this?
[Zac Bears]: So it's more that the existing zones are better following topographical contours. Correct. All right. Seeing no further questions from members of the Council, are there any questions from members of the public or comments from members of the public, either in person or on zoom, you can come to the podium, or raise your hand on zoom. Seeing none, on the motion for approval for first reading, Mr. Clerk please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Five-three is not eligible to the next meeting.
[Zac Bears]: So on the motion, Vice President Collins to take paper 25045 from the table and approve. This is the replacement of the sign at the car wash. Is there a second on that motion? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Is there any discussion on that motion? Seeing none on the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Sure, no worries. Yep. Well, we haven't gotten there yet so I'll uncall the roll Councilor Callahan if you have discussion.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, there is a sign that is a pre-existing sign that way too much legal work has gone into, in my opinion. I shouldn't editorialize. There's a sign at a new car wash. The car wash on Fulbright Street, which was once Minuteman Car Wash, was there for a very long time. it has a sign that is somewhat iconic on the highway. Minuteman car wash closed and they've been purchased by a new company that wants to build a new car wash there but they want to keep the sign they just want to change the name of the sign to their company instead of the old company. And there has been a dispute over how long the sign was inactive. And does it count as a pre-existing use? And apparently, I'm pretty sure this is the packet for it.
[Zac Bears]: And the only thing that's changing is that the plastic that they put in front of the light bulb will have a new name on it.
[Zac Bears]: Yep.
[Zac Bears]: I am not sure whether or not we are in receipt of a legal opinion. But it is ultimately up to the council as the final authority on appeals of signed permit refusals by the building department. I haven't read a legal opinion. That's all. You can any further discussion members of the council.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's in the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes, and the appeal of the refusal of their signed permit was successful. Mr. Clerk, if you could communicate that to the proponent, to Attorney Desmond, and to the building commissioner if necessary. All right, public participation. This is the section where we can hear from members of the public on any topic that they'd like to discuss with the council. Each person who likes to speak will have three minutes. And just as a point of note, the council cannot act in this meeting on anything we hear because if it was not on the agenda. And since we've disposed of everything that was on the agenda, that is true, but we could act at a future meeting if a councilor were to propose a resolution, or if some other discussion were to happen. But we hear from public participation, and if there is anyone who wants to participate outside of Zoom, they can email the city clerk at ahertovsetmedford-ma.gov. So if anyone would like to come to the podium or raise their hand on Zoom for public participation. Welcome. I would have welcomed you earlier, but I was sitting there.
[Zac Bears]: If we just get your name and address.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I just want to say thank you for feeling like you could come down here and that you could have your voice heard. That is one of the one of the roles of this body. We've done a number of resolutions and had conversations where we've had residents who said, federal level isn't listening to me the state level isn't listening to me. I'm a resident here. Will you listen to me? And, you know, That I think has had a lot of value for people who come down and a lot of value for me personally. I'm gonna say a couple quick things. One is, in a couple weeks, we are passing an ordinance to enshrine in city law protections around gender-affirming care, reproductive health care. We had an ordinance in January championed by, I mean, I almost don't do, everyone else here is doing really hard work, and I just wanna thank my fellow councilors. an ordinance enshrining what was a administrative policy into city ordinance law about non-cooperation of our police department with federal immigration authorities around civil immigration detainers. We had a resolution at our last regular meeting in deep anger and opposition to the abduction of Ramesa Ozturk. And you, you are here, you are certainly not the first person who has come to this podium or raised their hand online and spoken since November about these issues. Many, many more people have sent emails or made phone calls or just posted online and I know there's a lot of people who are, I'm really scared right now and I'm one of them, sometimes more than I even think and You know, and I say all that to say that we're trying to do as much as we possibly can within the authority that we have to make Medford as safe as we can make it. And that there, as you said, what is the state going to do, what is the federal government going to do? Those are really hard things that we think about too. It's, you know, what happens when that bridge is crossed, right? And we say our city law says this one thing and they come in and they say, well, we don't care about what that is. And the danger that I fear in so many ways that there's a lot of road ahead of us here. So I just wanted to just say those things and lift up the work of my colleagues and also say that I personally have called on the mayor to take more action in news media and around not just making statements, making a statement around the abduction, but what are the way that we're gonna mobilize our community resources. So I just wanted to say all of that, and I have, it's lighting up the board, everyone wants to say something as well. So I will go to, I'm not sure who went first, so I'll go to Councilor Tseng first.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Lemang. Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in public participation? Seeing none, is there a motion on the floor? On the motion to adjourn by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: City Council committee to the whole meeting, April 29 2025 is called to order Mr. Clerk, please call the roll Council Callahan. Vice President Collins Councils are also Leming Councilor scarpelli is absent, Council saying, President Bears, present six present one apps and the meeting is called to order, there'll be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the whole at 6pm in the city council chamber second floor Medford City Hall, 85 George B has to drive mid for Massachusetts and via zoom action discussion items 25039 annual budget process for fiscal year 2026. Preliminary budget meeting. Number one, this will be the first preliminary budget meeting of the FY 26 budget process. Mayor has communicated the following departments will be present Council on aging, finance and procurement. And just for note, the process up to this point, Councilors submitted individual budget recommendations for consideration and many of the whole March 13. We held a meeting of committee of the whole March 18 joint meeting of the city council and school committee March 19 City Council submitted collective budget recommendations to the mayor March 25, and we are holding preliminary budget meetings between now and May 21 with our department heads, and the mayor will submit a comprehensive budget proposal to the city council by Friday May 31 2025 upcoming Preliminary budget meetings and committee of the whole will be Tuesday today, April 29th at 6 p.m. Tomorrow, Wednesday, April 30th, 2025 at 7 p.m. Tuesday, May 6th, 2025 at 6 p.m. Tuesday, May 20th, 2025 at 6 p.m. And Wednesday, May 21st, 2025 at 6 p.m. So with that, it's really up to you guys. I know Bob's here for finance and maybe also an overview. Maybe Nina, you're here for an overview. Pam's here for council on aging, whichever order you'd like to take that in, we'll take you.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Director Dickinson.
[Zac Bears]: All right, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just really quickly, I think, and I think it's important to clarify. There's a right now with the budgets that you're working with, when you say a deficit, you mean that right now we're projecting that our expenses, if we wanted to spend everything that all the departments want to spend right now, would be a million dollars more than the revenue that we would receive. So we're not in a in a deficit, we are right now trying to figure out how to get expenses down to what we expect revenues to be or revenues up a little bit more before next fiscal year and this is for the budget starting July one and I just think that's just good context for anyone watching maybe for the first time to understand. And we're talking about next year's budget and from some of the documents and some of the conversation you just had. The real big things that are driving costs are the fixed costs that drive the budget up every year. And we're talking about contractual obligations to our employees based on their union contracts, the healthcare through the state group insurance commission, the pension liability that we're funding, and the DPW trash contract. And I think, given just some of the preliminary numbers, we could argue that that million dollars comes from any one of the four budgets this year. I think they're all up about, I think even trash is almost up a million this year. So we, as in past years, are seeing that our fixed costs, the things that we need to pay because we are contractually obligated to provide them just to maintain existing services and the existing staff level are going up faster than our revenues are going up. And that is true even with the override. So we are where we were before. I just wanna ask you one question, then I'll go to Councilor Callahan, which is if we had not passed the override, given where we're at at this point in the budget, what would we be looking at for our schools or for the city without those funds?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. And I just think that's important grounding context for people are gonna hear Oh, well, we didn't override and we still have a deficit. Well, that's, that's how much things are. That's what the costs are impacting us. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. All right. Do we have any other questions from members of the council at this time about the budget? Seeing none, I just have one more actual question on a grounding context comment. You were mentioning, you're looking at local receipts and new growth, you're finalizing new growth, and you've looked at the cherry sheets. Is there any hope that some portion of that million may come from maybe some amount of additional revenue as you finalize those numbers versus removing things from the budgets?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I just wanted to clarify, because it sounded like you said it could go either way. And I'm just wondering, is it possible that it sounds like you're basing it like this is the revenue number that we're going to have, and most likely the revenue number is not going to change too significantly either direction?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. If there's no further questions on the general overview of the budget. I think we could go directly to talking about this finance and procurement budget. Oh, I think. Yeah, I think Shane has to turn them on for them to show up here. Great, all right, we'll stick with finance. I'm just gonna read it out really quickly. We have fiscal 26 proposed personnel, 620,295. Fiscal 26 proposed ordinary expenses, 259,840 for a total of 881.35. And that's up from 854,314. So an increase of 25,800 or about 3%. And that is coming from clerical contract raises and a 2% COLA for non-union employees. FY26 audit costs are projected to be increasing by that, by about 10,000. The cost for the admins program increased by 7% expenses. And also there was an advertising increase expense and the lease for the copier and a new printer for checks went up, so. doesn't seem like anything that we don't need.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And just for anyone watching the audit is the independent audit that we do have all the city finances every year. And admins is the financial program we're currently using for city. Right. Right. Do we have any questions on the finance and procurement budget. Councilor Tseng, Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for saying when you say a north of a million dollars are we talking one time costs.
[Zac Bears]: Well, maybe some good news I'm hearing is we've maybe laid some foundations to enable us to do the project. But it sounds like, to me, acquisition and training are one-time costs in the million to mid-million, $1 million range, maybe more than I'm seeing Nina point higher in the sky.
[Zac Bears]: The low single millions.
[Zac Bears]: And then I guess the only reason I'm doing that is because right now, From what you said, I'm drawn to the idea that we are paying an annual subscription costs for admins, SoftRight and Harper's right now. Yes. And I'm wondering if the combined annual cost of Munis, moving all of them eventually to Munis would eventually even out or maybe be lower.
[Zac Bears]: All right, we'll go to, I think I saw Councilor Callahan and then Councilor Lame, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I would consider that a motion by Councilor Callahan to request that the finance director put together a one page document outlining the process to move to.
[Zac Bears]: There's a second on the motion. We'll go to Council Chief Steph.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And could we maybe request that by September... First? First of the day? Was it the day I was going to say? I was going to say September 30th.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Is there a second on that motion? Councilor Lazzaro? All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. Any further questions, Councilor Kellogg? All right, we'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: That's all. I don't want to belabor this too much. I do a, you know, one 100th the size version of what you do in my day job. But essentially, what you're saying is we'd be this process is at the end of it, we would have had to reteach everyone who buys anything in the city how to buy something. make sure all the payroll stuff moves over smoothly and everyone who was paid by the city continues to be paid correctly, and also reteach not just people who work in the building, but also introduce residents to new ways to pay most of their taxes or fees to the city through the Treasury Department.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. OK. And I just put that out there. I agree with, I think, the spirit of the council, which is to say, there's no better time than soon to get started on this. But also, I mean, essentially, we'd be talking for at least some period of time, we'd be paying for the new system, continuing to pay for the old system, probably running both systems in parallel, until we're sure that the new system is not going to fail out for an essential, you know, obviously, you can't miss a payroll run, right? So I understand the scope and scale of what you're talking about, but I think this document is a good start. I really think soon after that, we should get into the nitty gritty of what does it look like in the CIP to pay for the one-time costs here? How significantly, obviously, depending on bidding and what solution ends up being selected, are we talking about a huge, know, $250,000, $500,000, $750,000 impact on the operating budget? Are we talking about like, 50 or 100,000? Because I do think that when we're talking about constantly being in a million dollar shortfall, when we're trying to make the budget every year, that would be impactful to me, you know, if we're talking about another million versus 100,000, that order of power, but just appreciate you going through it. The only other thing I wanted to ask, you went through how an AP workflow would work with a new system. What does it look like now?
[Zac Bears]: OK. And I think that's just the kind of hidden cost element of this, I think, is something that it might be worth noting or trying to note in the document you come up with over the next few months. Because that's the one piece of this where I think there may be huge benefits in the sense that if we can get a system that's much more efficient, how many hours of work are we saving people in your office, but also all the people putting in POs and everyone working in treasury that could go to do something else? Because it's not, you're not seeing it on the line item, but if a clerk is spending 10 hours a week or 15 hours a week in a department doing mostly this, and under a new system, it'd be two to five hours a week. That's pretty significant financial impact on the city in the long run as well. So I know that's hard to quantify, and I'm not asking you to quantify it, but I just think it's a part of the conversation. The goal of this is not just maybe making it easier to put the city's financial, put the Munis module to show it on the website, it's also trying to make it so that the people in that building can focus more time on other work rather than having to move paper back and forth to buy paper, for example. So if you want to comment on any of that, I don't want to not let you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so on the back end you're saving dozens and hundreds of hours But it's a huge amount of fun to get there.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I I appreciate the discussion, appreciate you writing something up. And last thing, you know, I think, I still think this is important. I still think it's an issue. You know, when you first came on and a couple of years ago, when I would say there was less familiarity with the complexity of the systems that we have, you know, I hope you're here through however long you want to stay here and through us transitioning to new modules and a new financial system. how are we doing on the, you know, what for lack of an artful term, I often in operations and finance work called the bus factor, which is if suddenly we did not have Bob Dickinson here, how are we able to transfer the knowledge that you have or the ability of someone to come in and say, I understand enough how these systems work that we can do a budget, do an audit, nevermind just running payroll and AP and stuff like that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah just if you know if let's assume you you move on or you retire or whatever.
[Zac Bears]: You hit the lottery let's let's make it positive we'll call it the lottery factor you know.
[Zac Bears]: You hit the mega millions.
[Zac Bears]: Kidnapped by aliens you know we could go any direction but you know and someone needs to come in and keep running the city. I know that was a tough that there was a lot of training that had to go into getting to understand how our old systems work and integrate so
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I appreciate that. And, and, you know, I say it to kind of go towards counseling points, but also to note like, There's people who have been using these systems a long time. There are quirks in these systems. There are probably... little things that, you know, someone learned and now they know, you know, it makes things much faster, I would guess. Or, you know, when they're looking something up, they have that institutional knowledge and experience. That means that even though the system is clunky and complicated, once they learn, oh, soft write, if I click this button to connect it with admins this way, it's much easier than trying to look at Google it or whatever, you know. And I think, you know, again, it's more work for an office it's overworked and you are the first department we're hearing from and I'm guessing that every department we hear from will be talking about under resourcing and being overworked. But I think one of the reasons we, at least for me being on the council in the fiscal 23 budget process and, and, you know, what happened there, and that interim period between the CFO positions. One of the reasons I think, and Councilor Tseng being here too, and Councilor Collins, and I'm sure Councilor Scarpelli would say it as well, one of the reasons I think we're so intent and focused on this idea of moving to a new system is we saw what happened when the existing system didn't have the people with that institutional knowledge and they were learning that institutional knowledge on the job, trying to put together the budget. It was not certainly the process we have now, which I think is really great. And I'm saying this mostly to be positive and say, you know, happy with how things are working and impressed at like, it's, it's never, there was a double entry or anything. It's like the system works, you get us the information, even though it's not the best system. something if we're gonna be talking about like a three, five, six year timeline or more for transitioning to a new system that a Bob and Courtney's thoughts or a Bob Courtney and Judy's and Lisa's thoughts book of here's the workarounds that we found might be like something like an SOP around some of those kind of the quirkiness of our existing system might be worth having on hand just for the possibility of, you know, I'm just thinking back to that specific case that we experienced together.
[Zac Bears]: You know, yeah, no and I appreciate that and I think you know even just collating those and saying, in case of a fire, break this glass, here's where the book is. It could go, it would, you know, I never want to be in that budget again. This is, you know, it's not great, but it's way better. All right, any further questions for finance and procurement? Seeing none, we will go to Council on Aging. Thank you. Thanks, Pam, for sitting through and me kind of trying to end the council talking about financial and procurement systems. I'll just read really quickly. We have fiscal 26 proposed personnel budget $264,064 and ordinary expenses $16,000. And this is an increase of about $3,000 or 1% from $277,157 to $280,064. And it looks like all the increases are in the salary and one office equipment. So about $5,400 in COLAs, $20 increase in an office equipment contract. And it looks like there was a reduction in some of the proposed budget for telephone and internet in the ordinary expenses. With that, I'll go to you, Director Pam Kelly, Council on Aging.
[Zac Bears]: Feel free to add anything you want and then we'll go to questions.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have any questions for Pam, Council on Aging? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, thank you very much. I just have a comment and a question. I just want to say thank you for working with members of the council, you know, the whole team over there, Suzanne and everyone else for setting up the listening sessions. I know that several Councilors have been engaging more with the senior center in an official formal capacity, not just coming to events, but having those listening sessions. So I really want to thank you for that.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. Thank you. And then my just my other question, I know, the general fund budget, you know, this budget pays for people, and the office supplies, basically, correct, but you get some other funds, could you tell us, you know, state and other grant funds than what that programming looks like?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. And yeah, I just think the other great thing about this process, and there's so much context, this is the city budget.
[Zac Bears]: But the city budget isn't actually all the money that city departments spend on the things that they do. And so, for example, you know, it's almost you know, another hundred something, almost $200,000. Correct. Yeah. That you use for all the other programs that absolutely our seniors love. So I just think, you know, as much as we can talk about reminding everyone, you know, this, you might see this piece of paper and say, well, what are we doing? The answer is it's coming from somewhere else.
[Zac Bears]: Yep.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. Well, thank you so much. I'm seeing no further questions. Do you have any motions? All right, thank you, Director Kelly.
[Zac Bears]: That was our two departments and our overview for today for the Committee of the Whole meeting. Do we have any further discussion or is there a motion? On the motion to keep the paperwork in committee, refer out the motions and questions, and adjourn. I don't think we had any. We had the motion from Councilor. That's from Councilor Tseng, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned. We'll be in regular meeting in just a minute for seven, a little after seven o'clock. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Might check one, two, check one, two. Check, check two. Check microphone one, two, microphone one, two, one, two. Medford City Council special meeting April 15 2025 is called order, please call the roll Council Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng, President Bears present seven present and absent, please rise to salute the flag. Communications from the mayor to 4468 submitted by Mayor Brianna lingo current draft city charter as amended by city council on April 8 2025. We have before us tonight, the draft city charter proposal as amended by the council on April 8 2025 and referred to this special meeting as follow the submission of the mayor by the mayor of an amended draft on March 31 2025 that followed the approval by the council on March 11 by a six zero vote, one absent of a draft charter referred from committee of the whole after governance committee review. If approved by the council, this draft charter as amended by the council will be resubmitted to the mayor for consideration for submission to the legislature. Subsequently, if the mayor submits a draft city charter to the legislature and the legislature approved said draft prior to the printing ballots for the November 4th, 2025 municipal election, the voters of the city will approve or deny the draft city charter on the November 4th, 2025 municipal election ballot. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry. It's a motion. The first one was 3-1-C. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: More than one C reads no person shall be elected to the office of mayor for more than four consecutive terms. Yes, and I wanted to yes and the motion was to remove consecutive from three one C. Yes. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And that's one motion, not three motions.
[Zac Bears]: That's the question I'm asking you. Anyone else can make a motion to sever if they'd like.
[Zac Bears]: One motion then. One motion. Okay. Is there a second? All right. We're going to do all the motions and all the discussion. I'm gonna take the motions in order. Is there anything I have, Councilor Lazzaro?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Um, I just realized, my apologies, that Councilor let me just made a motion to amend he not did not make a motion to approve as amended Is that correct. You just wanted to amend the paper under consideration. Yes. Okay, I shouldn't have had you start talking on your motion. My apologies.
[Zac Bears]: What we did last time was someone had moved to amend and approve, and we considered a number of amendments to that motion. And that's why we took them in order. These are separate motions to amend the main paper so we should take them consecutively. So we should talk about going to go back to Councilor Lemings. which has a second from Councilor Callahan to remove consecutive from 3.1c to add more than eight terms under 2.1 and 4.1. So essentially to set eight term limits for the council and the school committee. Is there a discussion on that motion? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: I completely heard Leming as Lazzaro. Sorry. Okay. Is there a discussion on the Leming motion seconded by Councilor Callahan regarding term limits. Councilor Scarpelli. Nope. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion on the motion of Councilor let me a second by Councilor Callahan. We do have Vice President Collins as co host. So, she should be able to vote. Seeing that, yep. All right, on the motion of Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan, Callahan, Callahan, interesting. Callahan, regarding term limits. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng President Bears, no to the affirmative five in the negative the motion fails. All right, Councilor Lazzaro, now is the time. Thank you for making your speech already. You don't have to say it again, but just to reiterate, your motion was to revert to the mayor on the school committee, but not as the chair. All right. Is there a second on that motion? Sure, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Is there any further discussion by members of the council on Councilor Lazzaro's motion? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Is there any further discussion by members of the council? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: We'll do both, but we're gonna do that after we finish this motion to amend for the school committee.
[Zac Bears]: Your motion is a motion to amend the main paper to amend the main paper to restore the merit of the school committee, but not in the role as chair so voting member but not chair that has a second from Councilor Scarpelli. Is there any more discussion on that specific motion? for members of the council and I did see the mayor's hand. And so once we go through members of the council, I will recognize the mayor since she is the presenter of the paper. Mayor, I saw your hand earlier. If you want to re-raise it to speak on specifically this question about restoring the mayor to the school committee. and you should also be able to start video if you want.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mayor. I'm gonna go to Councilor Scarpelli and Councilor Collins in just a second, but, okay, well, then I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Tseng, but I just wanna note that we did submit a draft March 11th, three weeks before the end of March, six weeks before now. And I also wanna note, I don't think anyone here has said that, has commented once about the political leanings of the members of the Charter Study Committee. And I think there's a difference between quote unquote politically diverse representation decided by a single person making that determination and representativeness on a committee. I think what the council has said and that really I think is troubling to me. You started with saying you didn't think you had the votes. I think you did. And I think I'm the swing vote. I don't think anyone here has said, oh, we wanted, we're mad because of the political opinions of people on the study committee. That is not been said here. I think the question was, what was the council's and school committee's involvements in the creation of the study committee? And does the study committee reflect the representation of the voters of the city? And the answer is the council and the school committee were not involved at all in forming the study committee. And the study committee was appointed by one person who apparently just said that their main consideration was political diversity based on their opinion of political diversity, not the representation of the city. So I'm not gonna comment further than that, but no one here has said, oh, the charter study committee is a problem because of people, the political opinions of the people on it. And I include the person who made a death threat against me. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Was that a proposal to further amend the motion to move the first charter review to five years instead of 10 years? You mentioned that we could do the first charter review earlier. Right now it listed as 10 years. The mayor suggested doing it in five years. I don't know if it would help. I'm just asking.
[Zac Bears]: Great, it doesn't need a second it just needs the main proponent to agree to it. Great. All right, so the motion is now to restore the merit of the school committee but not as the chair and to have the first charter review in five years instead of 10 years.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And to Councilor Tseng's point, you know, I know a lot of people have been saying, well, what does the council think about this? Because there's been press releases and statements and social media posts really encourage people to watch what is certainly now approaching the 20 hours of public meetings, where I believe everyone, at least when it comes to our comments about what we think about the charter, has said, this is what I think, and I take that in good faith. the comments to the otherwise from anyone saying actually, they're lying, and they're liars, I don't think are really helpful or accurate. Can you had your hand raised. No. All right, I'll go to Councilor Collins and then I did see the mayor, who I will go back to Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: So I want to make sure that- Sorry, that may have been a clerical error by me as we have not had assistance on any of this in terms of putting together red line drafts. So yes, that should read three, three, three.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And just an FYI for members of the public. We're going through Council discussion and Council motions on this paper. Once all Councilors have made discussion items or other motions that they want to make on this paper, and it has been amended, then we will open public participation on the paper before a final vote. And it also sounds like a lot of B paper, so we'd be doing that for both of those papers. Is there any further discussion by members of the council or the mayor who is the petitioner who put this before the council on the question, the motion before us, which is to restore the mayor to the school committee, but not as the chair and to further amend that motion to have in section nine for the first charter review in five years. And then every 10 years thereafter, vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to sever seconded by Councilor Lazzaro Mr. Clear, all those in favor, actually first time in a little bit we've had everyone. All those in favor, I opposed. All right, we'll vote separately on those two questions. Madam Mayor, feel free if you want to raise your hand, I did see you earlier. If you wanted to say anything more on this since you were the one who submitted this to us. Not seeing the hand will vote. Oh, she just did. All right, we'll go to the mayor. Floor is yours Madam Mayor, I just, I didn't want to.
[Zac Bears]: The public will speak on the papers once we finish council discussion and motions to amend, but we will have public participation once we've gone through all of the council discussions and motions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Mayor. All right, any further discussion by members of the council on the motion to amend as severed? Seeing none, the first vote would be on the motion to amend for the first charter review in five years and then every 10 years thereafter. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. And I might ask Councilor Collins to do a copy of it before I send this final, final thing back. So I make sure that we captured everything we voted on. That leaves the first half of this motion, which is to restore the mayor to the school committee, but not as chair. Both of these are councilors are seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli has requested a roll call vote. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I thought it'd be this way and I was wrong. Yes, five in the affirmative, two in the negative. motion passes. So clearly groupthink and our ulterior motives are absolutely true. All right. Councilor Lazzaro, you had mentioned a B paper.
[Zac Bears]: We can wait.
[Zac Bears]: We'll wait for everyone to be paying attention before we keep moving forward.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Before I go to, sorry, before I go to the motion to be paper, actually, I do have the mayor.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Just want to recognize you mayor. I saw your hand up.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Thank you. Okay, continue Councilors are.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Is there any discussion by members of the council on the B paper proposed by Councilors are seconded by Councilor Callahan to have this press release sent out through the city's press release, posting on the city website and however, any other press releases are sent out. Any discussion on specific language, or, or any other elements of it, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: No, we'll vote on the B paper first. There are highlighted sections in here. Councilor Lazzaro, it looks like those are the ones that would describe what happens in the vote. Technically, it's an A. We have to vote on the main paper last.
[Zac Bears]: If you want to increase that highlight to- I can highlight that one.
[Zac Bears]: Could we put an amendment forward that the clerk and I will adjust any sections that councilors deem necessary to reflect the final decision of the council on the main paper? Is that a fair amendment?
[Zac Bears]: All right, so we'll work on that. Make sure that the final docket reflects what we vote on.
[Zac Bears]: Paragraph ending over several meetings so the fabric beginning over several meetings some sort of sentence that says, you know, if you want to characterize it or Councilors are if you have a suggestion, whichever one of you wants to make a proposal for a sentence that indicates that the council had significant disagreements about the process and the outcomes.
[Zac Bears]: Something like while many Councilors raised serious questions and voice strong opinions about issues of policy and process, and we could get more specific if we wanted to say issues of representation, balance of power and other elements of the other policies and elements of the process in the experience of compromise the council voted to a drop this draft unanimously.
[Zac Bears]: I'll say representation. Balance of power.
[Zac Bears]: Issues of representation, balance of power, other policies, and the process. And it's OK. So it reads, while many councilors raise serious questions and voice strong opinions about issues of representation, balance of power, other policies, and the process in the spirit of compromise, the council adopted this draft unanimously. And obviously, that assumes we adopted it unanimously. So if not, I would change that to adopted this draft by a vote of whatever. OK. Any further discussion on this B paper? All right, is there any discussion by members of the public on the B paper? Again, the B paper is the council's press release regarding the vote that we will take on the A paper after we dispose of the B paper. Please come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom if you have a public comment on the press release draft B paper. I see Pete Morrison on Zoom. name and address for the record, you have three minutes. And this is on the B paper of the council press release.
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely yes we will.
[Zac Bears]: Anyone else who wants to talk about the B paper the press release on the motion of Councilor Lazzaro seconded by Councilor Callahan as amended by Councilor Tseng that we have this press release to be posted on the city website and released through the city's press release outlets. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. All right, we have the A paper, which has one amendment, which is to restore the mayor to the school committee, but not as the chair and to further amend section nine dash four so that the first charter review occurs within five years and every 10 years thereafter. And I can read through the other changes if we want to do that just to make sure. These will be changes from the draft submitted by the mayor so this would include the votes taken on April 8. All right, the first changes in section two dash one see, which just says a word Councilor shall be a voter in the word from which election is sought, removing the words for at least one year prior to the date of inauguration. The second change. is in section to dash nine, where the first sentence reads the mayor shall refer to the city council and simultaneously file with the city clerk, the name of each person the mayor desires to appoint as a city officer department head or member of the multiple member body for whom no other method of appointment or selection is provided by charter or ordinance. Under section three, it reads the same, the mayor shall appoint subject to the review of such appointments by the city council under section two dash nine all city officers and department heads and the members of multiple member bodies for whom no other method of appointment or selection is provided by charter or ordinance words or ordinance or what is added. In section three six be the words and the city website were added after tell me immediately posted on the city bulletin boards. That's for if the mayor calls a special meeting of the council. All right, section 4-1, we would restore the language that says the school committee shall consist of seven members, two members elected at large by the voters of the city and one each elected from the following districts combined of the combined wards within the city, wards one and seven. words two and three words four and five and word six and eight and then it would restore the language the mayor shall serve as the seventh member of the school committee. It's only 40 pages I promise I will flip quickly. There was some language removed because it was redundant. This is in section 8.2 subsection B. that just removed basically there's a sentence that says that the city solicitor shall advise the city council or school committee in writing as to whether the measure as proposed may lawfully be proposed by the initiative process and whether in its present form it may be lawfully adopted by the city council or school committee. This strikes and whether in its present form it may be lawfully adopted by the city council or school committee because that's redundant to the first sentence. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB – Harmon Zuckerman. PB – Harmon Zuckerman. And then in section 9-4, section A, the charter shall be subject to review by a charter review committee as defined below within five years of the charter's approval by the voters and every 10 years thereafter. So that changes it to five within five years instead of within 10 years. And then every 10 years after that. And then B, this review shall be made by a special committee composed of three appointees of the mayor, three appointees of the council and three appointees of the school committee. That reverts to the council's vote from March 11, and reverses the change the mayor made on April 1 which would have had four of the mayor three of the Council to the school committee. And I think that's it. Is there anything that folks think I miss. All right, any discussion by members of the council on the draft as amended? We have a motion. Is there a motion on that draft? We don't have actually a motion yet. There's a motion to approve by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli on the draft as amended. All right, seeing no further discussion by members of the council, we'll go to discussion by members of the public. Please approach the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. Actually, sorry, I see the mayor. So we'll go to the mayor and then we will go to public participation. Madam Mayor.
[Zac Bears]: Mayor could you. We didn't hear what you said could you just repeat your comment.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, you were cutting.
[Zac Bears]: We had voted, this was in the March 11th draft, and it was in the vote we took last week that section three, three would read the mayor shall appoint subject to the review of such appointments by the city council under section 2.9, all city officers and department heads and members of multiple member bodies for whom whom no other method of appointment or selection is provided by charter or ordinance. So if at the charter or and we added the words or ordinance so if the charter or a city ordinance provided another method of selection. Then that would be who makes the selection. As I was reviewing, I did see a comment that did not get incorporated from the Collins Center in section 2.9, which was, we recommend replacing this text with the following text. So it would read, the mayor shall refer to the city council and simultaneously file with the city clerk the name of each person the mayor desires to appoint as a city officer, department head, or member of the multiple member body for whom no other method of appointment or selection is provided by the charter. Um, so I had added or ordinance because I felt it aligned with the three, three vote that we had taken to add the words or ordinance. Um, as I read it, at least the change to three, three would say that if an ordinance said that someone else appointed either a city officer department head or member of a multiple member body, then the ordinance would define who appointed them, not the mayor. I don't know if that maybe an error, I shouldn't have changed to nine.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean, I think that the section three three change would say that if an ordinance said that someone else makes that appointment, whether that's the council or that that would be how that would work. But now that I'm reading two nine, I think it makes sense what you're saying that if the, for whom no other method of appointment or selection is provided by a charter or ordinance, the mayor would have to refer to the city council. So that should probably just say by charter in two nine. I thought they were making self-referential references.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I was reading it was under 3-3. that it says the mayor shall appoint subject to the review of such appointments by the city council under section two dash nine all city officers and department heads and the members of multiple member bodies for whom no other method of appointment or selection is provided by the charter or ordinance so if the charter or an ordinance were to say who should be appointing a city officer or department head or a multi-member body, then that would be what defines who makes the appointment. But I'm wondering if separately in section 2.9 where it says, the mayor shall refer to the city council and simultaneously file with the clerk the name of each person the mayor desires to appoint as a city officer, department head, or member of a multi-member body for whom no other method of appointment or selection is provided by charter or ordinance would mean if no ordinance existed, she would have to submit it to us. So what we don't want is that if there's nothing in the charter or the ordinance, then it doesn't start automatically everyone, but what we do want is that if it is in the charter ordinance it has to be followed. So I mean leaving or ordinance and three three, removing it from tonight. Is that any.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to confirm my understanding with all of us here. What we're voting on is that if the charter or the ordinance says that there's an appointment, that's what follows. But that if there's nothing in the charter or ordinance, then we do not have to appoint.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, so that's what we're. Okay, so that's what we're doing, Councilor.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Okay. Yeah. All right. We'll work out this, make sure we get the thing right. I think we actually have exactly what it needs to say right now, but we'll confirm that. So the motion as further amended is that the council leadership will work on, we'll just confirm the language as discussed and the intent, confirm the intent of the council.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And we will have a press release for you and Steve for tomorrow to go out from us. So look forward to it.
[Zac Bears]: We'd like it to go out as a press just to the same places where the last press release about this issue went out, if you don't mind. All right. We have a motion, as amended, just to confirm that in section 29 and 33. And we'll get that to the mayor motion by Councils are seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Now we'll go to public comment and you can please No, Lazzaro Scarpelli. And so we will go to public comment. If you'd like to comment at the podium, please come to the podium or on Zoom. And Phyllis, you have had your hand raised, so we will go to you first. Name and address for the record, please. And Phyllis, you have the floor.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Phyllis. And thanks for waiting. And, um, members of the study committee who want to say anything, I just want to say, and I, you know, I appreciate you directing your comments generally to the chair. Um, but I did say some things about, um, about politics and my point being that the mayor tonight said that, and the process for appointing the study committee was that people applied and then the mayor and her office made a decision on who would serve on the committee, that the mayor said that her goal was to have a politically diverse representation. So essentially to appoint people based on their political beliefs. and that the council didn't like the Charter Study Committee because we didn't like the political beliefs of the Charter Study Committee or some of the members. And my point that I was trying to make was that no one on this floor in a public meeting certainly that I ever heard said the Charter Study Committee's members and their politics is why we disagree with the Charter Study Committee. So I appreciate your comment. And I appreciate that, you know, it can be frustrating to hear that. I was frustrated to hear it when the mayor said it. And that's why I said, we, no one here in this forum has said, I don't like the study committee because I don't like the politics of some members of the study committee. Or I don't like the study committee because I don't like this person on the study committee. And I took that even to the point of saying, someone who said some very horrible things about me, I have never once said, I'm disagreeing or I'm voting this way because that person served on that committee. I'm going to go to Jean Zotter, another member of the study committee. Name and address for the record, Jean. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Two more since you're on the study committee.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Jean. Any further comments by members of the public either in person or on Zoom? PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. Just a minute. All right, you should be able to start your video. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Ellen. Do you have anything else you want to add before I answer your question? All right. So the answer is that, and I hope My colleagues will in the legislature will take this with all due respect the legislature is a great black box. And there actually is no deadline. And there actually is no threshold for how the vote needs to be. All we know is what the legislature tends to do, and what they're kind of. informal practice is the legislature is starting their budget season, essentially next week so the idea is if you get it in before budget season you'll have a better chance of getting it passed before budget season ends. The budget should be passed by June 30 but usually goes into July, and then they take a summer break. So it's all based on kind of the informal workings of the legislature. Additionally, technically by the law, a four to three vote of the legislative body and the approval of the mayor is legally sufficient for the legislature to advance a home rule petition. Technically the legislature could pass a law applying to the city, I believe even without the council's assent, they are under the state constitution, essentially all powerful. But the best practice is that you want a super majority between a super majority and near unanimity. So that would be here a five to two, a six to one or a seven to zero vote. So, you know, and the higher that is the better chance you get. But again, that's not a rule or anything that is established by law. That is kind of an informal practice of the legislature. So the goal is always to get it in as early as you can and with as many votes as you can, but Beyond that, there's nothing in the law or the rules of the legislature that defines either of those. They could, if we voted at four, three, they could take it up in their next session and pass it the next day and we could be done with it. But it really just is about the leadership setting the calendar in both chambers and what they're comfortable with. I'd refer you to a lot of the public discussion about transparency in the legislature to talk more about that. I'm going to go to Eileen Lerner on Zoom since we don't have anyone in the chamber. Eileen, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Munir Jimenez. name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the public? Mr. Andrea Tola. Come on down, we're gonna get you in front of the microphone. You have the floor.
[Zac Bears]: Good night, thank you very much. All right, we have one more comment on Zoom and if there's no one else in the chamber, I'm not seeing anybody. Go to Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom, name and address for the record, you have three minutes. Andy, are you there? Andy, I'm asking you to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: There you go. We can hear you. You got three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Do you know? 1986 election was I think the, and then I went into effect for the 1987 municipal.
[Zac Bears]: We're coming on 30, 38. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: I don't want to take credit for anything, so Milva, correct me right away. But you may have, I went to the library, got three, four years ago now, and I pulled the mercury on microfilm. And I think I printed those out and emailed them to Milva. Probably there were many others that were used, but don't let it be said that I didn't realize I was in the report or may have been. But yeah, no, it's, oh, Milva might be correcting me right now.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion by members of the council or the public? All right, well, I will just say that I really echo, Councilor Tsengs sentiment, and most of what he actually said to not just a sentiment. I think the great failing of this process and in many ways municipal governance in Massachusetts is. that the state laws and the state constitution do not give cities and towns in Massachusetts the powers that cities and towns and most other parts of the country have. Even our home rule constitutional amendment from the 60s, which enables the home rule charter process, makes it hard for that process to be initiated. And the real question here is we had to jump through You know, we, this process went the way it went because we had to go outside of the process that the law and the Constitution offers us. we had to appoint a study committee that actually was just authorized by the mayor as a matter of policy, rather than the general laws or the state constitution, because we didn't collect enough signatures and the legislature denied our home rule petition, which we did approve. We approved a 4-3 home rule petition to have an elected charter committee here in Medford, but the legislature has the ability to say no. Well, even though the mayor and the council by majority vote agreed to that, The legislature didn't even have to consider it they never had to take a vote on it they never had to even say no to us they just never had to say yes. our options were limited. We're going through a special act charter process so still the legislature has to approve everything we want to do, even if the residents wanted rank choice voting or multi member districts or, you know, a model of mayoral involvement with the school committee that hasn't been seen before. We couldn't actually deliver to voters, what they may have wanted and what this city would like to have seen its form of government look like, because the state processes basically don't let us do that. Certainly, the ones that might let us do that are very hard for communities to move through. We see this when it comes to laws that the council may want to pass around housing, around traffic and transportation, around the safety of people on our streets. up and down on anything this council and the people of the city may want. How many times have you emailed a Councilor, a school committee member, or a mayor, and they've had to say, sorry, call your state rep, or sorry, call your state senator. And then you call them and they say, sorry, I need to get 160 other people to agree with me. And it truly does become an act of Congress to put a crosswalk in. It's an act of the legislature, an act of the general court, right? The other thing it does is it pits us against each other, right? We could have had an elected body that made a recommendation that went right to the voters, and none of us would have had to be involved, and the mayor wouldn't have had to be involved, and the legislator wouldn't have had to be involved, and the people themselves could have directly said, this is the kind of government we wanna see, and then the people themselves could have voted for it. But instead, our egos, and our personalities, and our opinions, and our thoughts, and our research, and our evidence, and all of our data was forced to get in the middle of that. Maybe we're overcoming it. We've done that a lot this term. But the last two terms we didn't. In Somerville, they haven't. They've been having this fight for six years now, whether the council wouldn't approve it or the mayor wouldn't approve it. So something we've talked about here throughout this process is that this is for the future. This is for the people. This isn't about the people who are in these offices right now. And it's self serving to say this but we're lucky that the people who are in these offices right now agreed to disagree to move something forward, because most of the time, it doesn't happen. And the system and the structure that governs this process is designed for the exact opposite. So I know there's probably some people who are never going to vote for me again because of the things I proposed here and, you know, some people are going to say that this was the power grab and the other thing wasn't the power grab. For better or worse, the seven of us and the mayor, it looks like, we'll see, I don't know how many of you are going to vote, got together and said, all right, we'll put our opinions and our egos and our differences aside because the system is designed for us to fail and we don't want to fail. And I think that that is a good story. And I'm happy that I was a part of writing it, even for all the parts that I don't like and all the chapters and all the challenges and conflicts in that story that were not particularly fun. So with that, maybe we'll get done before nine o'clock. Any further discussion? All right, on the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to approve as amended to have Council leadership work with the mayor on the technical language surrounding sections 29 and 33 to meet the discussed intent of the Council, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six the affirmative one in the negative, the motion passes. And we have advanced the draft charter as amended. There's a motion by count and we're also the B papers so that'll go as well on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to adjourn seconded by seconded by Council is our all those in favor. All right, I suppose motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I hope it's horrible. No, just, I really wasn't gonna say anything, but did a budget chart. Come on, a budget chart you don't want me to talk about? That's like my thing. And if this is beyond like the software's capacity, maybe that you're using, I think it might be useful to do it. You know how like sometimes you see that pie chart and there's a little slice of the pie that's separated from the rest of the chart. I think it might be useful to lump insurance, pensions, bonds, and interest in like a little slice and be like this slice is fixed costs that are defined by the retirement board and the GIC and the bond. Well, bonds and interest I think is a little more nebulous because we do decide how much to borrow, it's just we don't control the repayment schedule. But I just think a little chart being like here's all the stuff that's we're not actually spending on the departments other than health insurance and pensions and the city's retirement pension and I just love that little graphic where you have a slice of the pie. And then I think it might be really visually, because I looked at this and I was like, why so much gray? That's hard to see. Then I was like, people aren't going to see that 21% of the budget is, 22% of the budget is this. So just a thought. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: The other thing I might suggest is actually combine DPW, but then separate out the trash contract line item and gray that out. Because the reason DPW highway is so high is that's almost all the trash contract. Yeah, it's like, I think, 7 million of the 9 million for DPW highways the trash contract and that's also one of the key fixed cost drivers along with, especially in this year's budget, so that might be worth putting in the gray as well waste management trash contract, and then if you subtract that out and then combine all of DPW together, I think that would just be a little more reflective of essentially that it's schools, police, fire, DPW, and everything else. And DPW together, you mean including cemetery and... Yeah, but also that, and obviously leave out water, sewer, because it's enterprise, but half of the total DPW budget is the trash contract.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Council President, I don't know if you've seen the New York Times study of our article it's kind of a graphic of the neighborhoods of New York City, and they like they all everyone disagrees. So they kind of did a heat map. I mean obviously that's way beyond the level of resources that we have. And I think too, right, like you could make an argument, there's a lot of folks, and actually it goes back, it's funny, it's really old, or right now, people who call the east side of the city East Medford, like, and there's an in-between group that is more like calling it Wellington or Glenwood. So I don't know, I've always been a fan of kind of offering a north, south, east, west square model, and then kind of putting in like in parentheses like East Medford, Wellington Glenwood, West Medford, maybe you could put Brooks Estate or something, South Medford, Hillside, it could be in parentheses, I don't know. But I agree that Brooks Estate as a standalone is a little confusing. I think this is fine. If I was to make a suggestion, I would change it to like Wellington slash Glenwood slash East Medford or something like that. But that's I'm agnostic on that I really think we don't have a clear definition of where some neighborhoods and other neighborhoods start, I think, okay so another suggestion maybe would just be to have.
[Zac Bears]: I've found that a lot of people don't have, actually can't place their location on a map. Yeah. Visually, without being able to search their address. So. Yeah. Yes. It's a toughie. I just wouldn't do Brooks Estate because I think that got me very confused to just be like the caretaker of the Brooks Estate.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. he's met for. All right.
[Zac Bears]: Or even maybe, yeah, I think it's fine. It's probably more representative to get more accurate data, especially at the low end and the high end.
[Zac Bears]: I was present bears, I would just also know that the tax brackets are based on adjusted gross income, and then minus the standard deduction. So, if you want to go at it that way. The standard deduction is what I only know is my taxes is 14 six so 11 plus 14 six is about 25.
[Zac Bears]: They're probably thinking their salary, not their adjusted salary, minus the deduction, which is what the brackets are based off of.
[Zac Bears]: That's a good point.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to thank you for the introductory preliminary budget meeting will be April 29, so two weeks from today. And then likely the two longer budget meetings will be the week of May, May 20th and 21st. We'll have one on the 6th, but I don't think we'll have one of the week of the 13th. So Justin, if that affects your calendar at all, like I would guess that the 30th of April and the 6th of May will likely be some of the smaller departments and then the larger departments would be in later in May.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, if you want to leave it open to get as many comments as possible, I mean, it depends on the level of analysis this committee is planning to do. Do you want to have a meeting to review the results prior to, you know, if you set the deadline as we want to review this, you want to review, all right, May 7th is the next meeting of this committee. So if you wanted to review it at that meeting, then that would be your purview, yeah. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: I think. One of the things we're talking about and something that's been discussed for a long time is the underutilization of the lots surrounding the immediate platform. And yes, there has been these accessibility platforms have been added kind of towards the back end of the lot, but they are not a full renovation or the permanent changes that we'd like to see. at this location. Another point of note is that, you know, and this is the really big infrastructure question that who knows if and when it will be ever be answered, is that the High Street and Canal Street crossings are two pretty much the only at-grade crossings left, certainly on this part of the lower line all the way up into Woburn. So you know, fixing that problem is a much longer question. Um, in any case, my point being that the zoning of the mix to be for the lots that are currently the parking lot, the old citizens bank, that's now closed the Walgreens and the post office would allow for, I think, and I think any serious project proposal for this area would, um, look at integrating the into some sort of structure or development. So that is, I think, a long term vision that has been discussed by many people for a long time for that area. And I think hopefully In doing that, we can address some of the issues that have been presented by this kind of temporary, or it's not necessarily temporary, it's permanent, but it's not a complete fix to the accessibility issues for the West Medford commuter rail stop.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I think just looking at this, the Dunkin' Donuts parcel and adjacent parcels, as well as that very large lot that is mostly used for parking that runs on both Harvard and Bauer. I think, yes, I understand the argument around the tracks being a place for the mixed-use 2B, but I think we could consider those as well, especially that Duncan lot, which I think could be significantly transformed to be more of an anchor for the square rather than what it is right now, which is mostly an empty parking lot. In terms of extending down High Street towards the Arlington border, personally, I think Looking at, I mean, certainly I don't mind considering it in the context of this proposal or as an addendum to this proposal, but I also think that. Really, when we say there's commercial all the way down to. The rotary we're talking about 2 commercial buildings and a gas station. On a couple across 4 or 5 blocks, so it might be more of a candidate for. The mixed use nodes that we're talking about. as it could be part of that process. Um, I just think that the context is a little different.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, I think we need to think about that. If folks remember the fire on the kind of lower end of Canal there because it's a dead end because of access issues. I know that it's just a strange little area in terms of access and developable capacity. And I think we need to think. Another step there, and at least review some of the communications that we had with the building department and the fire department around some of their concerns about. that structure and even just the impact of rebuilding that to its status before the fire and safety and accessibility issues. I just think it's a kind of a unique question. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, but I think we should have that conversation because I know some concerns were raised because of that incident.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, President Chair Collins. I just want to apologize to Councilor Scarpelli. That was my omission of putting this on the agenda. I do think a paper did go up at some point to the mayor's office that included the information. So that's on the agenda. That's on me. But I think it went up with records whenever you made that.
[Zac Bears]: City Council seventh regular meeting April 8 2025 is called to order Mr. please call the role.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, President Bears present seven present non absent, the meeting is called order please rise to salute the flag. Announcements accolades remembrances reports and records records the records of the meeting of March 25 2025 were passed to Councilor Callahan Councilor Callahan how did you find those records. I found them in order and I move to approve on the motion of Councilor Callahan to approve the record seconded by seconded by Vice President Collins, Mr. Clerk, please call the role.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. Reports of committees. Is there a motion to join and approve? On the motion of Vice President Collins to join and approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. And I will go to Council Vice President Collins. on 24033 planning and permitting committee report. Oh, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Great. 22379 and 22453, Councilor Lazzaro, Public Health and Community Safety Committee, April 1st. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. 24069, 24354 and 25041 offered by Councilor Leming. Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, April 2nd, 2025. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. On the motion to join and approve the committee reports, any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, there is a hand raised on Zoom. Sharon's iPhone, if you could just rename yourself to add your last name and then I'll unmute you and you'll have three minutes to discuss this paper. All right, the hand went down on the motion was for please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Great, can we take 52 first? Yes. Great. On the motion of Vice President Collins to take papers 2052, 2050, and 2051, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: We're, we're in the middle of a roll call. We could make a motion. Yep.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean affirmative no negative motion passes. 25052 submitted by the Elections Commission 2025 Medford election calendar nomination papers available Tuesday, June 10 last day an hour to pick up nomination papers Friday, July 25. Last day an hour to submit nomination papers July 29 host list of candidates, August 13 last day to object to nominations or withdraw Thursday August 14 ballot position drawing for preliminary municipal election if necessary Friday August 15 last day to register for vote to vote for September municipal preliminary Friday September 5. Last day and hour to apply to vote early for September preliminary election, September 9th, Tuesday, September 9th. In-person early voting from Saturday, September 6th through Friday, September 12th. The September municipal preliminary, Tuesday, September 16th. Last day and hour to file for a recount for the preliminary, Monday, September 22nd. Last day to register to vote for November municipal election, Friday, October 24th. in-person early voting for November Municipal Election, Saturday, October 25th through Friday, October 31st. Last day to apply to vote early by mail, Tuesday, October 28th. November Municipal Election, Tuesday, November 4th, 2025. And last day and hour for a candidate to file a recount petition for the November election, Friday, November 14th. And with that, I'll recognize the Chair and members of the Elections Commission.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Any questions by members of the council on the proposed election calendar? Is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Leming seconded by seconded by Councilor Tseng Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: That's a saying President Bears yes 70 affirmative no negative emotion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. 25-050 submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, loan order 25,775,000 school HVAC infrastructure and roof bonds supplemental. Dear President Bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the loan order below, which is in addition to the 5 million loan order that appeared before the council at its December 17th, 2024 meeting. Be it ordered that 25,775,000 $1,000 is appropriated for the purposes of replacing boilers and cooling systems with new condensing boilers and heat pumps including associated automated controlled structural and architectural work, electrical work, and weatherization at the McGlynn School and Andrews School and the acquisition and installation of solar panels and a new roof or roof repairs at the McGlynn school, including the cost of planning, design, architectural and engineering services and all incidental other costs incidental and related there too. And I'll leave it at that and I will go to our climate planner Brenda Pike and the assistant superintendent Peter Cushing.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And this is our third time I think seeing this project. If you could, could you just discuss any thing that's changed since the first two presentations that we received and then I can go. I'm sure a lot of small things have changed. You can keep it to the bigger things. And then I'll go to Vice President Collins and Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. We have a motion to approve from Vice President Collins, seconded by. seconded by Councilor Tseng and we'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, we have a motion from Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng to approve for first reading. Is there any discussion by members of the public either in person or on Zoom? If you're here in person, you can step up to the podium or you can raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Dear President Bears and members of the Council on behalf of the CPC I respect the request and recommend your Honorable body approve the following recommendation of the Community Preservation Committee $11,000 from the CPA General Reserve to the Winthrop Street Garden Commission for pergola installation at the Winthrop Street Gardens and it will go to manager to.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anything you want to add, Georgiana? No. Alright, cool. Um any Seeing none, do we have any questions from members of the public, either in person or on Zoom? Also seeing none, is there a motion on the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Could we, we do have clear channel here, could we take it quickly and then go? All right. I'm gonna go to paper 25036, hearings, petition to amend the special permit. Notice of a public hearing, City of Medford, City Clerk's Office, Medford City Council will conduct a public hearing on April 8th 2025 at 7pm in the Howard F. Alden Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall at 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, relative to an amendment requested by Clear Channel Outdoor on behalf of the property located at 282 Mystic Ave, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155. Petitioner is seeking an amendment to the previously granted special permit. The petitioner is seeking the amendment to upgrade and replace two digital screens on the signboard located at the property and to ask for a review and potential adjustment slash reduction in the permit fee. Copy of the full text of the requested amendment can be viewed in the office of the city clerk room one or three Medford City Hall. Please call the Medford city clerk's office at 781-393-2425 for any aids and accommodations by order of the many Medford City Council signed Adam I'll her to be a city clerk. So I'm going to open the public hearing. And I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli and then we can hear from the petitioner.
[Zac Bears]: I think that we do have the petitioner present.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, you should be able to turn on your video now if you so choose.
[Zac Bears]: We can hear you. Could we have your name and address for the record, please?
[Zac Bears]: Great, so we'd like to hear a bit more about the petition, what you're requesting, and then we will discuss it.
[Zac Bears]: All right. It also says that there's a request to reduce the fee. Do you have any comment on that?
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Um, I can't say that we have been a lot of the city's fees have not been updated in a very long time. It's very likely that the building department may have updated them to reflect the times. But I'm going to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: And Councilor Stroud, just to clarify the motion, if the petitioner wanted to move forward tonight without changing the fee, would you be comfortable with that or do you think
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: All right, so there's a motion to table. to the next regular meeting, actually motion to continue the public hearing to the next regular meeting and request an update on the application and the fee from the building department and also to request legal to give us an opinion on whether or not we can reduce the fee. When you have that, Mr. Clerk, let me know. All right, so there's a motion to continue the public hearing to the April 29 meeting by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? Seeing none.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, sorry, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further comment by members of the council? Seeing none, there's a motion to continue to April 29th and request those answers from the building department and the legal department. Any discussion by members of the public? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion, Mr. President, Councilor Tseng. You should be good.
[Zac Bears]: There's a motion on the floor by Councilor Scarapelli to suspend the rules to take paper 24468. Does that motion have a second? Is there another motion on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: Is there any further discussion? On the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes. 25053 offered by Councilor Tseng, gender affirming care and reproductive health care ordinance. I could read the full ordinance, but is there a motion to waive the reading in lieu of a summary by the petitioner? So moved. On the motion by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Collins, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, councilor Sagan. Is there a further discussion by members of the council? Council Vice President Tom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussions by members of the council? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public? either in person or on Zoom. I'm gonna go to Mike Denton on Zoom. Mike, you have three minutes. And I just wanna remind everyone, you can provide your name and address when you speak, or you can provide that information. You don't have to provide your name, but you can provide your address privately to the clerk if you'd like to do that. by email at ahertabaseatmedfordma.org. Mike, give me one second to get the timer going. All right, Mike, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mike. We'll go to the podium. Name and address. For the record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion on the ordinance? Seeing none. Is there a motion on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve for first reading by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 77 affirmative. Yes. None of the negative motion passes for first reading. 25055 resolution to support the release of Ramesa Ozturk council is our own president bears whereas Ramesa Ozturk was an international student with a legal student visa at Tufts University in Medford and whereas Ramesa Ozturk student visa was canceled because she co-wrote an op-ed in 2024 and the Tufts University student newspaper that was critical of the Tufts administration's refusal to acknowledge and stand against the ongoing genocide in Gaza and whereas the Constitution protects everyone in the United States regardless of immigration status, and whereas the First Amendment of the Constitution protects the rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and to petition the government, and where it's clear that Ms. Öztürk's visa was canceled because of political speech, which is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. and where it is the obligation of our local, state, and federal government to uphold and protect the rights of our residents, permanent and temporary, all of whom are protected by the United States Constitution. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Medford City Council condemns the abduction of Hermesa Ozturk by Immigration and Customs Enforcement as unlawful punishment for political speech, and acknowledges and condemns that Ramesa Osterk is a political prisoner, be it further resolved that the Medford City Council calls for the release of Ramesa Osterk immediately, so that she may resume her studies of child development at Tufts University and her peaceful residence in Somerville. Be it further resolved that the Medford City Council requests an update from Tufts University on the specific policies to protect their students, faculty, and staff from similar abductions by ICE in the future, and to protect their community's right to exercise freedom of speech, assembly, and to petition the government. Be it further resolved that the Medford City Council requests that our partners in local government and our state and federal delegations speak out publicly against the unlawful arrest of a student in our community in violation of her due process rights and in violation of the United States Constitution. Council Dizaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Cohns. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, we'll go to members of the public. I have two hands on Zoom or one hand just went down and we have someone in the chambers. We'll go to the podium first. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Matthew Page Lieberman on Zoom. You'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to Ken Garrow on Zoom. We alternate. Ken, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go back to the podium name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. No one else on Zoom, so we'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We do have a hand on Zoom. I'm going to go to Katie on Zoom. Katie, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go back to the podium, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comment by members of the public. All right. I'll just be brief as a co sponsor, but also as the chair I didn't want to say anything until everyone had had their say. One thing I think that's important to note is when what councilors are read on the previous or earlier on this item, Tufts made it very clear that I slide about when the visa was revoked. So it's another post-hoc attempt to justify this abhorrent act. The Supreme Court ruled yesterday, yes, that some of these folks are gonna have to refile in different courts of jurisdiction, but they were very clear I believe it was 9 to 0, that there is no justification for this venue shopping and trying to move people from Boston to Louisiana before their lawyers have the ability to file a habeas petition. The government's blatantly violating basic due process rights. Never mind. That's before we get to the question of First Amendment rights. Just to say, oh, we're going to get you out of the country faster than your lawyer can file a habeas petition one of the most egregious violations of due process that I think we've seen since the internment of Japanese people in the 1940s during World War II. And again, to note that the Alien Enemies Act was what Franklin Roosevelt used to justify that. It's a 1798 law. I think our values have changed a little bit since 1798, maybe at least only for some of us. And just on the point of acting locally, I can't really think of a greater danger to our residents and masked agents of the state abducting people off the street and beyond a resolution I would like to see the city seriously consider not just this item like the know your rights information but. Joining up with Community members and potentially using city employees to warn residents when ice is present in the Community, I think it's essential that residents are informed that there are dangerous people here who might try to take them for no reason against their basic human rights, and I say that to say that. When we passed the welcoming city ordinance a couple months ago, there was a. you know, some statements and questions went around, well, it's not going to happen to US citizens, or it's not going to happen to naturalized citizens, or it's not going to happen to green card holders. Well, it's not just, there's not just, you know, I think it's this mythical idea that there's this group of violent immigrants who have no documentation, and that's who is going to be attacked, and no one else is. Well, it's visa holders who've done nothing wrong. It's green card holders. And we've heard stories from the border of Canadian citizens, of naturalized U.S. citizens, of natural born, native born U.S. citizens being detained by ICE because they refuse to turn over their phone so that ICE can search whether they've put out statements against the president. So it's everybody. It's moving up the scale every day. Um, and that's why we passed that ordinance. We said, we're not going to cooperate. And now I think it's up to us to convene, uh, and to push the mayor to take action, to actively warn residents that there are dangerous agents of this Trump regime who are coming to this community who, um, may well pose them grave danger. I think that's reasonable. That's what local government should do. It should try to keep residents safe, safe by making sure they know When dangerous people are around, especially because, as was noted, we don't have the ability to tell them not to come here. You know, when dangerous people, when danger happens, local government, you know, stands up and says, we're going to try to stop this danger. And the sad part of what's happening right now is we can't tell the federal government not to come here. All we can do is say they're here, please stay away. So that's something I would like to see happen personally. And I thank you for your indulgence in me making that statement. Is there any further discussion by members of the public or members of the council on this resolution? Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, yes, we have offered support including the prior ordinance on the transgender rights and reproductive healthcare inclusion. But if someone would wanna make an amendment to add that to the resolution, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. We do have one hand raised again. Matthew Page-Lieberman. Matthew, I can go to you for one more minute since you've already spoken once.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the B paper by Councilor Tseng seconded by seconded by Councilor let me Mr. please follow up.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, having the affirmative, one of the none of the negative the motion passes on the a paper by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just saying, President Bears yes 70 affirmative none the negative the motion passes 25057 resolution to create and distribute know your rights information. We basically just had this discussion so I'm just going to say that the resolution is to be resolved that the city of Medford create know your rights informational pamphlets or flyers and distribute them. and promote this information via the city's online communication and social media platforms in our community centers, such as Medford City Hall, Medford Senior Center, Medford Public Schools, Medford Police Department Headquarters, and the Medford Public Library, and be it further resolved that this Know Your Rights information cover common questions and concerns and information on basic rights under the law, and be it further resolved that this be available in English, Arabic, Creole, Spanish, Portuguese, and Chinese. Councilor Collins and then Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng to approve. And is this referring to anywhere or just going right to the Mayor? Great. Is there any further discussion by members of the Council? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Is there any discussion on this resolution by members of the public, either in person or on Zoom? Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Eileen Lerner on Zoom. Eileen, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Eileen. We'll go to the podium name and address for the record please you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to Jess Healy on Zoom. Jess, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I can, if you want to use the rest of your time, I can answer questions at the end. Oh, okay.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. In terms of what Councilors or members of the public have said for Councilors, you can certainly email Councilors if you have a specific citation for a specific piece of information. You know, for the information I cited, I believe I read a New York Times article I could look for and provide. And when I mentioned a task force or a warning about the presence of ICE, I was talking about all Medford residents, regardless of their documentation status, because as we've seen, the administration is politicizing documentation status at this point.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not going to get into a back and forth. There are civil violations, but there are also people who are here legally and are now having their legal status revoked for political reasons. So it's unclear. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Go back to the podium. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I heard Fox said the markets are up. So I'm gonna go to Gene Zahner on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Jean. I'm gonna go to Matthew Page Lieberman, name and address for the record, three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Any further discussion on this paper? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm confirming the negative motion passes. 24468 draft charter as returned to Council by Mayor, submitted by Mayor Burrito Lungo-Koehn. The draft City Charter proposal as amended by the Mayor and returned to the Council on March 31st, 2025 is attached. The fall this fall the approval by the city council at the March 11 2025 regular meeting by a vote of six to zero one absent of a draft charter referred from committee of the whole following the governance committee's review process. If approved by the council this draft city charter as amended by the council will be resubmitted to the mayor for consideration for submission to the legislature. Subsequently, if the mayor submits the draft city charter to the legislature and the legislature approved said draft prior to the printing and ballots for the November 4 2025 municipal election, the voters of the city of Medford will approve or deny the draft city charter on the November 4th, 2025 municipal election ballot. I'm not gonna read the whole charter, obviously, and I'm not even gonna read the 160 plus line by line changes. The documents are available on the city council portal, but I will open it up to discussion by members of the council on the draft charter returned to the council by the mayor. I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: So it would be, I think technically a motion to approve as amended. And those are the two amendments. And that's my council, Lazzaro, is there a second on the motion? Second by Councilor Tseng, reminding that that motion can be further amended. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Collins and then Councilor Leming. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So those are motions to amend. The main motion by Council is our, which is seconded by Councilor Tseng. If Councilor Lazzaro can accept the amendments or there can be votes to include them. We do have more discussion. So if there are other proposed, let's see if there are other proposed amendments to the motion and then we can vote on them at the end. I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: I just, it is. It was 43% removed from the school committee, 35% stay on the school committee, and 15% don't know.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Before I go to Councilor Sagan, Councilor Callahan, I will note Councilor Sagan and I did try to work with the mayor to start the council part of the process earlier and eventually through the initial negotiations, we were asked to wait for the study committee to issue its final report before we began to take up consideration of any of this. We would have started about three to six months earlier if we had not made that decision.
[Zac Bears]: All good, Councilor Tseng? Yes. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan is that a motion to amend the main motion to refer this to committee of the whole.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And your other question is, who can give a definitive answer on what powers the. charter review committees established under the special act charter would have would they be home rule charter powers or just special act charter powers and it looks like we have anthony wilson from the collins center who's raised a hand who may have the answer to that question amazing i will unmute anthony anthony thanks for being here
[Zac Bears]: I don't want to speak for Councilor Callahan and Councilor Callahan if I get your question wrong please let me know. Anthony, I think the question Councilor Callahan is asking is, is the Charter Review Committee established under the Special Act Charter empowered to act as a home rule charter committee in the future, or would it only act as a special act charter committee, and therefore, if we wanted to do rank choice voting, would that have to be submitted to the legislature for their approval in a future amendment by the Charter Review Committee established under this charter, you know, the first one being five years and then 10 years after that. Councilor Callahan, did I get your, is that the question you're asking?
[Zac Bears]: OK, well, then that's just my question and I'm asking it.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So the charter review committee created under this would be another special act charter review committee. And so it wouldn't be a home rule charter committee.
[Zac Bears]: And, and when you say, you know, basically what you're, we'd have to assume if we wanted to change to ranked choice voting that the legislature would approve such an amendment, that the mayor would set it up and that the legislature would approve it if the council were to put it forward.
[Zac Bears]: And, but you're also saying that if say in the future, they wanted to, their charter review wanted to happen under a home rule committee, that the signature collection process would still be a valid way to do that.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. And that would be a home rule charter commission versus a special act charter commission.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Any further discussion by members of the council? We have three amendments containing five provisions that councillors have requested to amend the main motion. This is the two from Councilor Collins one is to amend the number of appointees to future charter review committees under section nine dash four, be to three Mayor three Council three school committee. Under 4-1, a motion to remove the mayor from the school committee. Now we have Councilor Tseng. Under 8-2, reverting the certification of petitions to the Board of Election Commissioners. And 8-2E, a 12% threshold for the citizen initiative. Is that the citizen initiative or the repeal referendum? Got it. And then Councilor Callahan to amend to refer to committee of the whole. Councilor Lazzaro, you could accept those, you could accept some of them, or we could vote on each of the five to include them as an amendment to the main motion. The main motion is by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng to approve the draft as amended. with those amendments being under section 3-3A, adding back the word, the words or ordinance and under 2-1C, changing that to a word Councilor shall be a voter in which the office is sought or essentially just not having a additional residency requirement for that type of office where it doesn't exist for any other office.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So we'll start with the first one which is the amending the number of appointees to future Charter Review Committees to three Mayor, three Council, and three School Committee under section 9-4B. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so the starting point of this is the mayor's amended draft. No motion has been made to change back to the five-four model. So the starting point for all of this is the mayor's draft, and these would be amendments to the mayor's draft that was returned to us. Thank you. You got it. On 9-4B, that's amending the number of appointees to future charter review committees to three mayor, three council, three school committee. Any further discussion by members of the council and then we will open. I want to get the main motion solidified and then we'll have discussion on the motion as amended by the council from members of the public. Any further discussion by members of the council on changing to 333 for the future charter review committees under 9-4B? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, could you call the roll? That's to amend the main motion to include that amendment. There's a second from Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: No, this is a vote on... Okay, yep, just as long as I heard you correctly, Council President, so... Yeah, this is just on the specifically including the amendment to have the number of appointees on future charter review committees Three by the mayor, three by the council, three by the school committee. I appreciate that. Thank you. Is that a yes? Yes. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. The second amendment to the main motion is section 4-1, the motion to remove the mayor from the school committee. I do have one clarifying question. Would this replace the mayor with an at-large member? Okay. So there would be, the school committee would be made up of three at-large members and four district members.
[Zac Bears]: There is an open committee of the whole meeting next week that just opened up. It's either Tuesday or Wednesday. I'd have to confirm. I'd have to check my email. Okay, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan, yes, sorry. I've got pop-ups covering you.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Um, yep. And there's 2 more motions before we get to the motion to amend to refer to committee though.
[Zac Bears]: If it were, Vice President Collins, I will just say procedurally, if this were adopted and then the main motion were referred to Committee of the Whole, there'd be an opportunity of Committee of the Whole to then revert it. Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Huh?
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I thought that was I think the question is whether you would amend your motion to amend
[Zac Bears]: To not vote on it now.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Sorry, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Instead of going to committee of the whole we could schedule a special regular meeting at the available time.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: The motion to remove the mayor from the school committee and replace with an at-large member was made by Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: And seconded by Councilor Leming. So Councilor Collins has indicated that she would prefer to vote on that amendment now. I will however say, or I'm asking you now, Three amendments from now, we have an amendment to refer this to a committee of the whole next week. Councilor Scarpelli has requested that that be amended to refer to a special regular meeting next week. Would you be amenable to that?
[Zac Bears]: Great, so we'll change that to a special regular meeting. Councilor Tseng. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming and Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins and then Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Please be Tuesday the 15th at 6pm.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. All right, back to where we were. There are four amendments to the main motion. The one we are currently considering is an amendment to section 4-1 to remove the mayor from the school committee and replace with one at-large member, you would have a school committee of three at-large and four district. That is Colin's motion, seconded by Councilor Leming. We then have two motions by Councilor Tseng regarding section 8-2 and then a motion by Councilor Callahan as amended by Councilor Scarpelli to refer this draft as amended to a special meeting of the council next Tuesday, April 15th at 6 p.m. So we are right now on the second Collins amendment 4-1, which is a motion to remove the mayor from the school committee and replace with an at-large member, seconded by Councilor Leming. Is there any further discussion by members of the council? Once we've gotten through these amendments, we'll have discussion by members of the public on the amended main motion. second from councilor Callahan are sorry. Are you are you calling for discussion my apologies. Are you want to discuss this motion further. All right. Then there's a motion from councilor Collins to amend section 4 dash one to remove the mayor from the school committee replace that with another at large member for a school committee of three at-large members and four district members. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan, you're muted.
[Zac Bears]: This is, this is to amend the draft we received from the mayor to remove the mayor from the school committee and replace that with another at-large member. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's the affirmative one of the negative the motion passes. We're now to Councilor Tsengs two amendments we have an amendment to eight to to revert the changes of citation of the city clerk to the Board of Elections Commissioners, because the Board of Elections Commissioners is the group that has access to the voting roles. Is there a second on that. Seconded by Vice President Collins is there any further discussion. Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 7-0, the motion passes. The fourth amendment, this is also from Councilor Tseng, would amend 8-2E to a 12% threshold to make sure that the citizen new initiative petition and the repeal referendum have the same signature requirement. Thank you. Is there a second on that? Seconded by Vice President Collins. Any further discussion on that? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 7 in the affirmative, no in the negative. The motion passes. Final amendment to the main motion from Councilor Callaghan as amended by Councilor Scarpelli to refer the Mayor's Draft as amended by the motions made at this meeting to a special meeting next week on Tuesday, April 15th at 6pm. Is there a second? Seconded by Vice President Collins. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative. The amendment is approved. We now have a main motion by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng, as amended by Councilors Collins, Sang, Callahan, and Scarpelli, which would refer the mayor's draft as amended to a special meeting of the council next week, Tuesday, April 15th at 6 p.m. It's based on the mayor's draft return to the council with the following amendments. Under section 2-1C, removing the one-year in-ward residency requirement for ward Councilors. Under 3-3A, adding back the words or ordinance, which allows the council to appoint members of boards and commissions if the ordinance so says. Under 4-1, a motion to remove the mayor from the school committee and replace with one at-large member to have a school committee of three at-large and four district. Under sections 8-2, a reversion of the certification of petitions to the board of elections commissioners, not the city clerk, and a 12% threshold for signatures so that the new initiative, citizen new initiative petition and the repeal referendum have the same threshold. And finally, under section 9-4B, amending the number of appointees to future charter review committees to three mayor, three council, and three school committee. And that draft would go to the special meeting on April 15th at 6 p.m. for a further discussion. Is there any discussion by members of the council on the main motion to refer to the special meeting as amended? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Seeing none, we'll go to members of the public. You can go to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. We have one hand on Zoom. We have a couple people at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. You have two minutes remaining.
[Zac Bears]: I do just, again, want to clarify that we did ask to have substantive meetings starting in September and the mayor, I don't know if she was speaking for the charter study committee or not, asked us to wait for the final report to be complete. We would have started this process months earlier. That's what happened. So it's just the facts. We're going to go to Zoom. Matthew Page Lieberman on Zoom. You have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. Sorry, Milva, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to Alyssa Nugent on Zoom. Alyssa, unmute you, you'll have, oh, actually I will go to Councilor Leming and then we'll go to Alyssa. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Let's go through public participation. Yeah, we can do that first.
[Zac Bears]: Go to Alyssa on Zoom. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Hold on a second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to Zoom. Eunice Brown. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. still here, still alive. I know some people would mind otherwise. But I will say to your point, Procedurally, yes, it will go to a special meeting next week. Whatever version is voted by the council would have to be approved by the mayor. The mayor could have submitted the previous version. This does require consensus of the council and the mayor. So that's part of the process. And again, it is one of the reasons that Councilor Tseng and I had hoped to start this process earlier than the council was able to. Go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Zoom. We'll go to Sharon Hayes. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Miranda Briseño on Zoom. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I think just to that point, right, we have a survey that folks worked really hard to try to make representative, still ended up 82% homeowner, 18% renter in a city that's 55% homeowner, 45% renter. We have the body of the work of the Charter Study Committee, immense research, lots of public outreach. We have the body of work that the council's done, the council's individual councilor's positions. We have councilors who have campaigned a lot, talked to a lot of people around the city for many years, received a significant endorsement from the city by being elected and the number of votes they received. And I think a lot of this comes down to You know, and again, right, word representation, the council has accepted the compromise submitted by the mayor. That was the big issue. It's 8-3, no one motioned to go to 5-4, it's 8-3. There were some other things, most of them small, one of them large. And that's what happens when there's a back and forth negotiation, but fundamentally, All we have in terms of quote unquote knowing what the people think is each different body's interpretation of the work that they've done, and how the public engagement that they have. That's what we have. So, you know, a scientific poll if there was a scientific poll that was representative that said. 40% support, eight, three, 20% support, five, four, 10% support all at large, 10% support, only eight ward councilors. It'd be very easy to make this decision. We don't have that because it didn't happen because the resources weren't put out to do that. So, you know, a lot of people on all sides of this, the council and others included have talked about what do the people want? And this is what the people want. We just have what we think the people want, and most of that is actually just based on what we think, and our opinions, and the work that we've done. So, just putting that out there. I'm going to go to the podium, name and address for the record please give three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Basically, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Technically, we're moving away from quote unquote plan A, but it retains the balance of power largely.
[Zac Bears]: There is no term anymore. It's a special act charter with a strong mayor and a weak council.
[Zac Bears]: As currently referred to the special meeting next week, 11 Councilors, three at large, eight ward.
[Zac Bears]: It's one of the arguments I made that was most pilloried.
[Zac Bears]: That was a motion that was made tonight. Councilor Collins presented it and there was a compelling enough based on that presentation and previous discussions that it was adopted for consideration at next week's meeting. Council Vice President Collins, and I'll pause your time, Andy, so that she can respond.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We have no hands on Zoom, so we will go stay at the podium. Nate, name and address record of three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: There was an amendment that the language we changed to a word Councilor shall be a voter in the word for which the office is sought so there's not a one year pre-lookback. There also was no one-year look back for at-large council, at-large school committee, at-large or district school committee or mayor. So, it was added back in by the mayor only for the office of ward Councilor but not for any other office. So, that was removed.
[Zac Bears]: I can tell you why I supported it. It was a restriction on the word councilor office that wasn't applied to any other office in the charter.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to finish public comment. You've already spoken on this item. I also have someone on Zoom who's already spoken on this item. So, I'm going to give Matthew
[Zac Bears]: That's it. Thanks, MJ.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium for a minute for your second comment.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go back to Zoom to Eunice for one minute for a second comment. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. As one person, I would agree with what you just said. I think government by unscientific survey is not the best way to make decisions. And that's why other information needs to be included as decision-making factors. I will go to the podium.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record. And just, we know you are Nate Merritt.
[Zac Bears]: Then the next option, I guess question for you is in the spring, a special election could be called, although I think the in within this document it says for the November 2025 election so we might have to pass something again, saying we want it for a special election. It could go on a separate ballot in the 2026 cycle, but state law prohibits state elections and municipal matters from being on the same ballot. So let's say this went on for November 2026, you'd get a ballot with you know, Senator X and Representative X, and then you'd get a ballot with just the, maybe not just the question, but with just municipal matters, potentially just the question about the charter.
[Zac Bears]: There could be a special election that would be called specially and separate. It could also happen. The point being, at least the Collins Center said here, there's two separate ballots, so it adds some logistical issues potentially, or voters need to fill out both ballots, and then you have to keep the ballots separate, but it could happen. Right.
[Zac Bears]: Special elections usually have lower turnout than non-special elections.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. All right. Do we have any further public comment? I'm going to go to Councilor Leming, then Councilor Tseng, then Councilor Collins, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. I see Anthony from the Collins Center, I'm guessing on this specific point. So I'll go to Anthony and then I'll go to Councilor Tseng and then Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Anthony. Thank you, Councilor Leming. And I think the other thing to add on this around the school committee is school committee is also quasi-executive. It has executive functions that the council does not have. Not only appointing the chief executive of the schools, but also line item authority over the school budget, which as we've noted is 40 to 50% of the city budget. So, when we talk about power and authority. In many ways the school committee is as powerful or more powerful than the city council.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I think it also is particularly impacts renters who may be moving from one part of the city or another due to the housing crisis. still know the city pretty well may have served for many terms, but suddenly find themselves forced into another ward, and I think to build upon what we're seeing right now.
[Zac Bears]: And we also review the election calendar tonight. Um pulling up papers is at least five months before the election where they have to be a resident. A voter registered voter within the ward. So,
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We don't have any further comment from members of the council, members of the public on the main motion. I will also just add that I think taking, sounded like there would have been a vote with no votes tonight. If it taking a week gets us to a 7-0 result, I'm confident in our legislative delegation to be able to advance a unanimous council vote and the assent of the mayor through formal or informal session. On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng, as amended by Councilors Collins, Sang, Callahan, and Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Is that a yes, Councilor Callahan?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, and the affirmative, then the negative. The motion passes. 24-054, sorry, 25-054 vacant building ordinance offered by Councilor Leming and Councilor Lazzaro, whereas the city has several commercial storefronts that have been vacant for a long period of time. Whereas their opportunities to incentivize owners of such property to maintain and rent their storefronts active businesses, whereas active and well maintained databases of business owners in the city of Medford will allow for a more robust and prosperous business community, whereas full vibrant and bustling business districts and city of Medford will allow our community to improve visually and economically and add vitality to our squares and corridors. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council adopt a vacant building ordinance which can be applied to incentivize these storefront properties to remain occupied, or otherwise encourage them to beautify their properties with public art. Be it further resolved that this matter be referred to committee for further discussion with the Building Commissioner and Economic Development Director, which committee? Oh fun, you're gonna make me chair in Admin and Finance. On the motion of Council, let me to refer to Admin and Finance, seconded by... Seconded by Councilor Tseng any discussion I'll go to Councilor Leming and then Councils are Council let me.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming to refer this to the committee on administration and finance and refer this to the building commissioner and city legal counsel for review. Council is our.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. To the petitioners or the offering Councilors, got to tell them which committee to send it to if you want it in the refer to committee section.
[Zac Bears]: All right. I also just want to thank you. I know that we discussed this about a year ago. And it sounds like through work with the economic development team and the chamber, we're moving along on this path, which I think is important of not just carrots, but also understanding there are some sticky wickets and sticks are sometimes necessary. So thank you for your work on this. I will go to Matthew Page-Lieberman name and address for the record you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not going to ask. Councilor Collins, if less folks mind. This is a relatively form resolution in some discussions with some experts. and folks who are working to have MassHealth work better to support children in Massachusetts with autism spectrum disorder. There is a way that the state could change the way that it has care set up here. Essentially right now, there's a large wait list of 2,000 to 3,500 children, ages two to five, who aren't getting the care that they need because of a shortage of key practitioners. And while specialists can diagnose autism by age to the average age of autism diagnosis in Massachusetts is 5.3 years old, and that can put children at risk of receiving critical critical intervention. At a time of narrow and ever closing windows of human neurological development and basically what's happening here is Massachusetts has a two tier delivery model. Rather than a three tier delivery model like some other states and adding what is called a board certified assistant applied behavior analyst has allowed these states to double the amount of clients and young people who are able to be seen by board certified applied behavior analysts. So this is a request that we urge the executive office of health and human services and MassHealth without delay to recognize this, implement this three tier model and add the role of an assistant behavioral analyst to the current system because it would allow our system to see more young people and diagnose autism sooner, and it has been effective in other states.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I would also just note that the coalition to improve quality and end wait lists lists a number of organizations, including the mass association of school superintendents, masters professionals in behavior analysis, council of autism service providers, as well as 23 mayors, including mayor logo. You want to say anything on the motion of councilor Leming to approve seconded by Councilor Collins, any further discussion. Seeing no discussion by Councilors is there any discussion by members of the public. Seeing none, Mr. Clerk please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: We may have lost Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in 60 for me to what I've seen the motion passes to 5058 request request list request report on tree rules and keep in park be resolved with the dpw Commissioner and city arborist or back to the council with the reasons and process for true removal at Cape and Park Councilors capital.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is that a motion receiving place on file? Yes, please. On the motion receiving place on file by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please. Councilor Lazzaro is still here, right? Yep. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative one absent the motion passes. Do we read this whole thing. I'll read it 25059 a resolution encouraging peace unity and constructive dialogue on the Israel Palestine conflict and condemning anti semitism offered by Councilors Kelly, whereas city of Medford values diversity inclusivity and the peaceful coexistence of all citizens regardless of race, religion or national origin. And whereas Medford is home to a vibrant diverse community including Jewish Muslim and other faith based populations who contribute to the social, cultural and economic fabric of our city. And whereas the city council recognizes that Israel Palestine conflict is a complex and long standing issue with a history of suffering on both sides and acknowledges the pain and hardship faced by both Israelis and Palestinians. And whereas Medford affirms that the right of Israel to exist and defend itself from violence should be recognized as an important principle of international law. And whereas the city of Medford expresses sorrow over the tragic events of October 7 2023 when Hamas carried out an attack that led to the loss of over 1200 lives the abduction of innocent civilians. And whereas Medford city of Medford condemns all acts of violence including terrorism and stands for victims of violence regardless of their national identity or religious background. And whereas the city of entry recognize that anti semitism is a serious issue with a painful history, where we must and we must stand against all forms of hate and discrimination in our community and beyond, and whereas the city of Medford also acknowledges the difficulties faced by Palestinians, including displacement and lack of a permanent homeland, and supports efforts to find peaceful resolution of their challenges. And whereas the city of Medford believes the path forward in the Israel-Palestine conflict lies in peaceful dialogue, mutual respect, human-to-human rights for all individuals, regardless of ethnicity or religion, and whereas the city of Medford recognizes that while individuals may have differing views on the appropriate responses to the conflict, it is essential to ensure these differences do not lead to division of our community or demonization of any group. And whereas the city of Medford encourages dialogue and peaceful discussion as a means to foster understanding and believes that divisive actions, such as divestments or boycotts may undermine these efforts and should be approached with caution. And whereas the city of Medford acknowledges the painful history of antisemitism and other forms of hatred, and reaffirms its commitment to ensuring that bigotry has no place in our city or our collective future. Now therefore be it resolved that the city of Medford City Council condemns all forms of hate, including anti semitism and commits to fostering environment of respect and understanding for all people regardless of their background or identity. affirms the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign state and its right to protect citizens from violence, encourages continued dialogue and efforts towards a peaceful and just resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict where the rights and dignity of Israelis and Palestinians are respected, supports the people of Medford in engaging in thoughtful, respectful dialogue on this important issue, recognizing the need for understanding and reconciliation between communities with differing viewpoints, urges caution and considering measures such as divestment or boycotts and instead encourages actions that promote diplomacy mutual understanding and peace encourages all citizens of Medford to unite and sending its violence hatred and extremism in all forms while advocating for peace, security and justice for all people. supports and supports educational efforts in the community to increase awareness and understanding of the complexities of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and to promote constructive and respectful discussions on this and other important issues. Be it further resolved that the Medford City Council will continue to encourage peace, unity, and understanding, and will work to create opportunities for meaningful dialogue among all members of Medford's diverse community. Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to table by Councilor Collins. Is there a second on the motion? Motion to table by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Council, yes, a motion to table is undebatable. Is there any further discussion? Well, it's undebatable. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Can't vote present. Sorry. No. Oh. All right. So I think we're just gonna have to mark you.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, that's fine. If it's because of that.
[Zac Bears]: All right.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, for the affirmative one and the negative one present the motion is tabled. And one absent. One, one, one.
[Zac Bears]: Oh a participation to participate outside of zoom please email a her to be submitted for an ma.gov. This is the part of the meeting where anyone can participate on any issue for three minutes the Council cannot take votes. I have a hand on Zoom, unless there's anyone who wants to speak in the chamber. Who's in line first? Somebody go first. All right, we'll start here, three minutes. Name and address for the record, please, and then we'll go to Zoom, and then we'll come back to the chamber.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Matthew Page Lieberman on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: and in Brazil. What? Matt, MJ, MJ, one second, I'm gonna pause your time. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: That's what I did say. Thank you. Evan Cheng, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you go back to the podium name and address for the record you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. I just want to note it was tabled. So this is where this public participation piece gets a little messy, is what should we be talking about. I'll go, we'll say we don't have any hands will stay at the podium, name and name and address the record three minutes, a mirror through some through Riverside have I'm not talking about this topic, something completely different that's allowable that's yeah that's okay cool honestly I'm uncertain, I'm going to pause your time as the chair I'm legitimately uncertain as to whether If a resolution is tabled, we should be able to talk about it in the open public participation section, but continue. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: The building has been is structurally failing. And that's why they're closing that's why the daycare move that's why all those tenants were protesting their notices to quit in last fall, the property owners the Hamilton companies. Essentially, they actually tried to have the building condemned last year. to accelerate their ability to move people out of it. But because there are severe structural issues with the building. My understanding is that the community development planning about the sustainability office and the economic development director met and spoke with the owners trying to connect them directly with other spaces in the city, and that they decided to not move this business but to focus on another business that they have involved in which I think is more of a restaurant. Yes. but there was active communication there. And the other thing I can say is that we have been trying to get the, there's an RFP process going on for the vacant city-owned lots that surround this building. The Hamilton Properties also owns the Riverside Plaza building and then that building across East Transit Way all the way down to I think they actually own everything down to the old Papagenos, which is now the dentist's office. Which dentist's office? Who knows? We have been trying to get them to incorporate their properties, you know, or talk to them. And we included in the RFP to say, hey, reach out to neighboring property owners to see if maybe we could expand this project and include even other properties because the city owns the parking behind that building. And That is ongoing those discussions are ongoing, I think because of the state of the structure. It's going to have to, there's going to need to be significant renovation or demolition is my understanding the building commissioner and development office but no more. Oh, not to say the city has been very active in this question. Sure. And I know there was direct outreach to NBC to try to get see if there was a place that they could move. And they, I think they decided not to, is my understanding, I don't know Councilor Tseng do you have more information.
[Zac Bears]: Think of how much older I am than him. That's where I spent mine. Thank you. Anyone who wants to speak for the first time for public comment we're going to go to first time people before we go to people for their second. Let's cast any three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: And I don't think we're going to go down this road here. I'm not allowed to tell you what to say I'm literally legally prohibited. Well, some of it might be but it sounds pretty messed up man. Let them know, I just wanted to be clear that I'm legally prohibited from regulating when people are able to say this body and it's frustrating, continue.
[Zac Bears]: All right. We can go back. Would you like to speak again? Get another minute in here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. We're still in public participation. Go to the podium, do a minute, since this is your second time around on this.
[Zac Bears]: MJ, I'm gonna have to page you and then we'll go to you for a minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion in public participation tonight? Councilor Tseng it's participation over. Yeah. All right. So what is it, Councilor Tseng, go ahead. Take the McCormick parcels off the table. Take paper 25020 off the table by Councilor Tseng seconded by seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. 25020 McCormick Avenue parcels. All right, color was clear.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion is taken off the table. Two, five, zero, two, zero. McCormick Avenue Parcels, Transfer and Conveyance. The motion to reject by Councilor Tseng. So voting yes means rejecting. Seconded by Councilor Collins. Again, this is a motion to reject. Voting yes means it fails. On the motion, okay. It's now a motion to approve. Yeah, exactly. Shane's gonna lose it. I mean, you can motion to whatever you want, but the point here being this is a motion to approve. If you vote yes, it is approved. If you vote no, it is denied. So if you do not want to transfer and convey these parcels, vote no. Is there any discussion, Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve by Councilor Tseng seconded by Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Is there no discussion by members of the Council. Any discussion by members of the public here on Zoom?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, one time funds for one time expense we got a Councilor's are.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Public participation, Matthew Page-Lieberman, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: This is a motion to approve. To vote no means that the council would not allow the land to be sold.
[Zac Bears]: That is correct as part of our collective budget recommendation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Any further public participation on this item. Seeing none, Mr. please call the roll Council Callahan is absent.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng, President Bears know to the affirmative for the negative one absence the motion fails, any further discussion. That's a client is absent Vice President Collins Council is our own.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Q and a with the planning department and City Council on the neighborhood residential zoning and the urban residential zoning. Thanks for bearing with us. I know there have been some good conversations happening outside. Um, We're going to tonight have a presentation and introduction from the director of planning, development and sustainability, Alicia Hunt and our zoning consultant, Emily Ennis. And then we're going to move to a Q&A. We also have a planner, Danielle Evans, and Paolo Ramos Martinez from Innes Associates. They are out in the rotunda with a number of large maps. And those are maps that folks can put post-it notes on with their comments and also have some discussions if they have kind of want to have a longer conversation with Paula and Danielle in the rotunda. So with that, thank you for being here and we're going to get started with Director Hunt.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to say one one more thing, which is what I don't think I properly introduced Vice President Collins. So apologies for that. Um, and who is chair of the planning permitting committee and has really been doing so amazing work, especially on the outreach as of late. And one other thing that I think is important in grounding that we've had in a lot of these zoning conversations that I think is good to just add is changing the zoning doesn't mean that anyone who owns a piece of property has to change anything about their property. So if we change the zoning to something else and you have a single family home on a lot and suddenly you move from a SF2 district to an NR3 district, you don't have to change anything about your property. you want to keep your single family home, you can keep your single family home. Um and because of this quirk of most of the zoning having passed after most of the buildings in the city were built. Um what would happen is that your home would become a non conforming structure or a non conforming use. And what that means in our zoning is actually that that's that may also be a pre-existing non-conforming use, to maintain that use or maintain that structure, it doesn't mean that if you have a single family in a district that suddenly has allowed three families that you have to change anything about your home. So I think that's really important to understand too. This is not a mandate. on anyone to do anything to their property. It is simply changing what private property owners are allowed to do with their private property. And I just think that's something that sometimes isn't included in these conversations that I think is important to talk about. So I just wanted to say that before we get started. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we can move to Q&A. We have this here and raise your hand on Zoom and we'll alternate.
[Zac Bears]: Emily, just on the map, is the light gray the half? Is that a quarter mile radius?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, and then the half mile goes out further. Yeah, we are definitely talking about Tufts and institutional zoning. It is something that we're taking up in April, I believe. And we want to put in the Tufts institutional zone and whatever power is in our disposal to control Tufts, which is we probably there's more that we can do, but it is also limited. And I think we've had some honest discussions on the planning permitting committee around. Should this be an NR3 like the rest of everything? Should it be a UR1? We've definitely heard some comments around the NR3 instead of the UR1 because a lot of the existing condition is very similar to the neighborhood outside of it. And then we've heard the flip side, which is if you're within the quarter mile radius of like one of our only three rapid transit stations, what should you do around density there? So I think, you know, hearing more of those comments, maybe pulling back the you are one to a smaller piece of that area might make sense. Maybe going to NR3 would make sense. I'm interested to hear what the Community Development Board input through public input is on that as well. But in terms of comparison to Wellington, The area immediately around the Wellington station for transit is going to be part of a special district where it's going to be. It already is part of an overlay district that has high density and likely is going to have mixed use district with very high density. So we are intending that the Wellington T station, certainly the quarter mile radius and into the half mile radius. would look much denser than the UR1 district around the Medford-Tufts station. And that's because of what's there now. We have two hands on Zoom. Do you want to go to Andrew?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, Andrew in request to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I would just add on inclusionary zoning right now the city's inclusionary zoning kicks it into 10 units. Yeah, building. trying to get the funding to do the nexus study to update our affordable housing linkage fees and the inclusionary zoning ordinance. One barrier that we have now is that the Supreme Court has said that things like linkage fees and potentially inclusionary zoning can be defined as illegal takings by the government, essentially requiring financial taking from a private property owner. So in order for our linkage fees and our inclusionary zoning to be legally defensible and unchallengeable, we have to do market analysis to determine what the market can bear. And if we say you have to have 50% affordable in order to build this thing on your property, that's been added to the zoning ordinance. The landowner can challenge that call that a taking and then basically just what our inclusionary zoning ordinance would become invalid. They may not have to build any affordable housing at all, so it's another barrier that's we're not going to be able to do that. But um, we are hoping at least my hope is that we can do an analysis and maybe reduce the place at which the units start. Um so maybe take that down from a 10 unit to a six unit. Another thing that we can update with our inclusionary zoning, and this is part of the ongoing part of this larger project. Um is to include that. Essentially that if the number of required units ended up being 7.5 or let's say .5, for example, for a very like a six unit development instead of either just getting one or no affordable units, the developer would pay a cash payment into our affordable housing trust fund, and that could be used to support affordable housing at another private location. So those are some of the things we're looking at. But the inclusionary, uh, is a discussion we're having. I think in May.
[Zac Bears]: Another option we could look at is we're starting to see that. In the mixed use quarters and squares. We developed this incentive zoning program. So if someone adds affordable units, they can build another story. I don't know if we want to do that. There may be in the you are too. We want to add an incentive zoning so you could go to a fourth story. But I think we're starting, you know, you're balancing a lot of concerns there, so we didn't
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Laurie, and we can definitely on the side work with the assessor just to try to figure out what changed on your paperwork. And I'm sure that the historical commission might have some documentation as well. And we could bring that to the assessor just to change it, change it back or get it right. either way you'd fall under the, I guess we wrote it as 70, but we, I think we meant 75. Right now, the historical ordinance for demolition delay is 75 years. I think we wanted the historical conversion to match that. So that might just be, so you're good either way, but, and quite frankly, most one, two, and three family housing in the city was built before 1950. So it would fall under the, it falls under demo delay. If there's a historical commission, if someone wanted to demolish a property that age, not saying that you would want to do that, but that's one of the reasons that we wanted to match those. I think A couple things that you said really brought out some of the points as to why we're trying to do what we're trying to do, and some of it is difficult, and I think that's just something we've been trying to acknowledge throughout the process. Change is never easy. The first thing is, I appreciate you saying it, you know, one of the things that I've heard that I've really liked, because I think it makes a really important point, is that the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is rent control for homeowners. And that's why, you know, it provides you that stability where you don't have to worry about being priced out and constantly moving. And that's why I think it's important to note that zoning is one piece of a number of strategies that we're trying to either employ because we have the power to or get the state to give us the power to employ. Um, this is the one that's about we control zoning so we can control what legally can be built on property, essentially the supply question. Um, you know, another piece of the housing cost issue is that demand. There's a lot more people want to live in Medford than we have houses for. So that's why the prices are skyrocketing so quickly. Um, And one of the other things that we try to do to answer that is right subsidizing the price so section eight, or the raft assistance program at the state level so that's like trying to subsidize the price doesn't really solve the problem but it does help some people. The flip side of that is like a rent stabilization or rent control where you say you the price can only go up this far, but it also doesn't solve the long term problem, which is more people want to live here than we have houses for. So I think what we're trying to do here is say, 30 years ago, when you were moving from Cambridge and Somerville was not affordable, but Menford was, that radius has expanded, right? That radius, you could say goes out to 95, maybe 495 now. And the question is, how do we have more units that people can either rent or buy in Medford where we can try to keep the price reasonable and try to keep the prices stable for as long as we can? Yeah, and people like my parents, we couldn't buy the house. My parents couldn't buy the house that they live in today. They only bought it 30 years ago because it was the price that it was then. I can't buy a house in the city right now. And I think that's true of a lot of people. We are a 55% homeowner, 45% renter city, and a lot of people who rent want to stay. And just in the discussions, we're having folks around Salem Street. I got an email from someone who lives right off of Salem Street who says, I've lived here for five years. They're selling my house. I have to move to outside of Waltham. The back end of Waltham out by 95. But I'd love to stay in Medford. And really, what we're trying to do, and this is a piece of that strategy, is how can we get more units in the city so that people can afford to live here? If some of them are for sale, essentially, I think someone had a great analogy. If we do nothing, if we just status quo, we have the number of units we have and we don't do anything, the prices are just gonna keep going up. and if you own you're going to be okay because well maybe not but most people are going to be okay if they can afford to pay their mortgage and their taxes right um but new people aren't going to be able to move here and a lot of people are eventually going to have to end up selling for some reason um retirement or or something else. And the prices are just going to keep going up. So we're not going to have the generational wealth opportunities, we're not going to have the ability for the children of people who live here now to try to buy another unit in the city unless they somehow are, you know, making 200 or $300,000 a year, which most people don't. Um, and one of the other pieces of that question is also just household size. The average household size is declining. So if you have a lot of larger homes where you may have had a family of four, a family of six, that is now just one or two people, um, you, you know, you need you would essentially need to have three, like a triple-decker on that property to have just the same density that you had maybe 30 years ago or 40 years ago. So that's why we believe that the densification here is important. It helps create not just this deed-restricted affordable housing, which has legal limits and you can't force people to build more of it than the market can bear, But to try to build more housing so that existing housing stock maybe goes down in price, so that we can try to better match supply and demand with the conditions that we face today.
[Zac Bears]: And I think that's another reason. Right now, what we're seeing is that the land is so valuable that someone can build a giant single family home and leave it empty for years and still make a profit.
[Zac Bears]: And I think the bet we're trying to say is if we can get them to build smaller units, more affordable units, not just these luxury units, by allowing more density in the same place than exists now, it could help reduce the vacancy. Part of the problem is we can't control what they do. But we're trying to change the, essentially adjust the market balance here to be more a priority of what actual people need. and less of these things that people can't afford. But there's a regional question, and even if we did all of this tomorrow, I don't think we're gonna solve the whole problem, but I think we're moving in the right direction.
[Zac Bears]: I can answer that, and I'll try to be brief. There's going to be a Community Development Board public hearing on April 2nd. They may conclude their hearing at that meeting, and they may extend it to their next meeting. Once that's reported out, it would come back to the City Council for a public hearing. The earliest we would consider that would be April 16th. It may be extended beyond that. and that city council public hearing would be the final approval. So at the earliest, it would be April 16th after the upcoming two public hearings. And in terms of if there is new zoning, how would you build something under it? You would go to the building department and you would request a building permit and they will tell you whether or not your permit meets the conditions of the zoning. And if not, then there might be another process that you might have to go through like a special permit or something else. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: You will go to Louise on Zoom. You got it.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, one thing. So one thing that's changing and it's partly because of the state law right now from the recodification and attached at you can be done by right. but a detached 80 requires a special permit. This will move both to a buy right status, which is one change. One thing we do need to look at when you mentioned egress is I think we actually have talked about building code. It may require a second form of egress, but this is where it differs from a second principal unit on the same lot. I don't think it needs a second I don't think you have to have two separate doors outside of the building. I'm not 100% sure on that, but I think that might be a building code thing, not a zoning thing. And we're going to, we could look at that. And that's the state building code that we function under.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just want to add to, um, that when we talk about this citywide rezoning, we are talking about densification in all districts and all neighborhoods. I certainly could be amenable to the argument that the NR one district should be an NR two district. I'm not against that. I think where we came in with this proposal was looking at existing structures, what's already there, the number of private ways, topography, and, you know, the NR one lot size. I mean, so we're reducing lot size minimums. Excuse me, excuse me, thank you. we're reducing lot size minimums, we are reducing setbacks, we're increasing maximum coverage even in the NR1. There are lots up there, right now in the SF1, it's a 7,000 lot size minimum. So that's the most, that is the biggest lot size minimum in the whole city. So the NR1 does increase density in those NR1 districts. Yes, it does.
[Zac Bears]: So if I interrupt you, so you can correct me and you're if you could just let me finish.
[Zac Bears]: I think it is. Is it a conversation or community input? Or is it yell at me day?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I've read it. So we're trying to have a discussion conversation. I don't think throwing around accusations of dishonesty and interrupting me is going to help us to do that.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I already was, but you interrupted me, so.
[Zac Bears]: All right. You know, if it's not worth it. He's not answering. If anyone else wants to discuss this issue with me, I'm happy to discuss it with you. If anyone wants to ask a reasonable question and have a dialogue with me, I'm happy to have it, but. I'm not sure what you're.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'm not disputing that. I'm not. My point being, if I could finish my point, was that this plan is about increasing density in every part of the city. Every district proposed generally does that. And if you look at the existing conditions map, that is one of the reasons that districts were drawn the way they were drawn. Thank you. It reduces lot size minimums, reduces setbacks.
[Zac Bears]: And I think just to add to it, we also have something let's say we did a UR1, but you wanted to expand your single family, that's now a pre-existing non-conforming use and structure, then you can go up to 150% of the status that it was before. So you could still even add an addition to a single family, even under the UR1, but there would be some limitations. Thank you. Ren Bean on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Sharon Diesso. Somebody knows her name. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Sharon, we're requesting that you unmute. Sharon Diesso. Sharon, we'll ask one more time and then we'll come back to you. We're pressing the ask unmute button. There should be a pop up on your screen that says unmute. And then when you click that, you will be able to hear you. We're going to come back to you, Sharon. So we'll go to Andrew McRobert on Zoom. Andrew, name and address. Oh, sorry. Wrong meeting.
[Zac Bears]: It's amazing when you realize a new instinct.
[Zac Bears]: Sharon, we're going to try you again on Zoom. We're asking that you unmute. Kit has requested that you unmute. We're going to try again. You should see a pop up, and there should be a blue button that says unmute. We can't make you unmute, sadly.
[Zac Bears]: Well, it would solve this problem.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. All right, Sharon, we're going to come back to you again. Go to the podium.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I for one am grateful for anyone who's living in the unit with more than two people in it. Because that's that we're going to have to make sure that we're helping the cause when we're we have such a unit shortage. Um. And you actually just raised an important point that I think maybe we need to factor into the multiplex discussion, which is if we're going to allow them. Do they end up qualifying under site plan review? And then there's a higher threshold of regulation. So you maybe wouldn't have them coming in and just going with through. So just all of these different thoughts that we've I would hope that that's subject to our open space and lot coverage requirements. I don't know if the state mandated one can't be less permissive than the single family, but that would mean that on the lot you still could have a maximum lot coverage of 50% and that would include the principal and accessory structure. So that I think is something important. And then for me, the second The question of the second ADU, how I envision it as a test case, and I think, you know, and I'm not necessarily saying that everyone else on the council or the community development board or in this process would agree with me, would be that you could have, say, like a 900 square foot attached ADU, and then say you had a pre-existing carriage house or structure, that maybe that would be something that would qualify under a special permit for some reason. that we're trying to do. I don't think that's the intent, but I tend to agree with you that it would be a loophole if you could build a two unit 2100 square foot livable area structure behind your 1200 square foot house and call it an accessory unit, and I don't think that's the. You know, intent of what we're trying to do so, making sure that we match the idea of a it's something I definitely and I hope we could ask to maybe Jonathan about just making sure around the dimensional requirements as well.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I just wanted to throw in, and I know we've said not long answers and this has been another long answer, but the I think one of the things we're trying to balance here too is what is the threshold where more process is beneficial and what is the threshold where more process is harmful. And I think like Judy and Mike raised. if you take the single family out of the UR1, you might not be creating more process for a small property owner versus when you have a six unit threshold versus a five unit or a four unit threshold for site plan review. At what point is that impacting what we would consider a small property owner versus a developer, right? And that's kind of another one of these, you know, spectrum where we're like hitting, nearing a threshold and like what What is the definition that best fits? And I think that's just some of the conversations and considerations that we're taking into account.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think one of them is the, I can never remember exactly the thing, but the single stairwell versus the double stairwell where, because you can't, you can basically, you can't have apartments with a cross breeze anymore because of the building code. But I think that state building code, and I don't think there's really anything.
[Zac Bears]: That's possible. Yeah, totally. But no, and you know, it makes me think, The more that we're having the conversations, the more I wonder if we need to add one more step of gradient or if we need to shift everything up. And you know i'd be interested again in the discussion with the community development board Like should there be an nr4 or if we end up getting rid of nr, you know Does nr2 become nr1, you know i'm just saying if we end up getting rid of nr1 and then that down shifts But then should there be a ur1 2 and 3 and then maybe in the one you allow the single family And so it just a little bit changes the scope of what we're talking about. Um But I'm just wondering if we got the gradient a little too constrained, and either need to shift upshifted or add another step somewhere to better meet what some of the comments we're hearing.
[Zac Bears]: And I think just like I think we're going to hit this rubber is going to beat the road, especially on the Main Street, Medford Street corridor, where you do have the mixed use, but maybe it would make sense to have a you are three with an incentive zone because you might want to have four story all residential facing the main corridor. And so I think that's something we maybe want to think about too. Or maybe it's four to six. I don't know.
[Zac Bears]: And maybe we don't get rid of all of NR1, a portion of NR1, but you added NR4. And that could replace this UR1 in the burgadab area, right? So maybe you would allow four, but you wouldn't allow the multiplex, and it meets more of that lot question.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and that's one of the things that we're going to do a parking discussion specifically around the parking table and how it would apply to all the new zones in May. One of the things that I am really pushing that we include is that if If you can't meet a certain parking minimum on a new construction that the units can't get parking permits for the street. So essentially, it would be to say in this new construction, and it would, you know. there's where you're gonna have one off-street parking spot per unit, and you will not have access to permit parking on the public way. And that's been effective in other communities where they've, they're essentially trying to say, you're 1,500 feet from the commuter rail. We're trying to have this be people who, either a family with a single car or a carless family, and you can't park on the public way because that's not what this structure is designed for.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, I think that's a, you know, I think you can control for it by parking control, right? I mean, if they're on the street, without a permit, they would be ticketed on the weekend ticket.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I think one of the things, I think, considerations that we made when we're talking about where are the lines in West Medford is how the lines were drawn in the 60s under the last zoning. And it was, to be, I'm not to malign anyone who was involved in the process if they are still around, but it was very clear that the African American, historically African American neighborhood was put as a GR, three unit district, and the mostly white neighborhood was single family. And I think the question is, where do you draw the line now? Do you keep the line because the existing condition of the existing housing reflects that? poor decision or not?
[Zac Bears]: And I completely, I think it's like a totally, I was just raising that point to be like, when we were looking at these lines in this neighborhood, it was like, well, we can just keep the same line. But then what are we, what dynamics are we reproducing that we don't want to be reproducing? But yeah, I think there's a lot of other considerations. And I'm going to go to Emily, who probably will say what those are.
[Zac Bears]: And I think and just I wanted to make two other points. Um, one. The lot sizes and the development patterns themselves are tied into these historical dynamics and it's like, how do we have an equitable arrangement across the city, where a big chunk of the city has 3000 square foot lots. Yeah, and another chunk of the city has five to eight to 9000 square foot lots and it's like, so if we just maintain everything based on the existing lot size and condition. So I think we're trying to factor all that into somewhat of a balance. And then I think, and I'm not saying you're saying we're not.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: And I think one of the issues here is when we're drawing lines, one parcel's on one side of the line and one parcel's on the other side of the line, and there's gonna be disparate treatment between those two parcels, and that's where the most tension is, right? And you're close to a line, so the tension point feels a little harder than someone who's in the center of a district, where it's like everyone around me is being treated exactly the same. And that's another, I mean, Somerville got rid of that by saying triple-deckers everywhere. which I don't think is the approach that we're taking.
[Zac Bears]: Exactly. I'm going to look into this data more too, because the interesting thing is on the population chart on the next page, that doesn't have the uptick. The unit has the uptick, but the population chart doesn't have the uptick. And is that then a vacancy question, or is it a decreasing average household side question, where it's the point is like, yes, we've added all these units, but because your average household size is one to two people- You're selling million dollar condos to a couple. Exactly. And so it's like we could build 10,000 units and we could build 1,000 units and have no impact, but maybe 10,000 units does. And it's actually the same amount of people living in the same place.
[Zac Bears]: And yeah, and I mean, that's the other interesting piece too, is in the developments that we're seeing come in, it's studio one and two family, and the average unit size is 800 to 900 square feet in those developments, right? That's the type of housing, so that's why most of the new build is in those five plus units buildings. So it's, yeah, it's as a fellow economics major, a fascinating set of conditions and equations. Yeah, excellent. All right, thank you guys, I appreciate it. Come on up to the mic.
[Zac Bears]: And the green score has a lot of different elements. It's a complicated equation, but essentially to maximize those environmental benefits, I just want to take two of the things. I think if we're looking at potentially a regradation of this NR1 to 3, UR1, UR2, to add a sixth grade or shift it around a little bit, Something we could also consider is, let's say that instead of UR1, we create an NR4 where you have single family by right. just for the neighborhood that you guys are in and talking about right now, since that's kind of been our reference point for it. Let's say that was NR4 instead of UR1, so maybe it's four units would be allowed, but it's still the lot size and height of the NR3 district. And I'm just hypothesizing right now. You could then say that in this new UR2, which might be in another part of the city, you could do the multiplex by special permit. So that would be site plan review with the ability to turn it down for certain reasons instead of by right. So there's some gradations within that shift where maybe we're adapting to what we're hearing and the conditions. The other thing we're talking about, and eventually it will align with this process, is we've been working with Therese Medford and the Energy and Environment Committee for many years on the tree ordinances, which it was one ordinance. It's now three ordinances. One of them is to create a tree committee. One of them is about public trees, which are under a certain set of Massachusetts general law. So that's the trees essentially under city control in the public way. And then there's a zoning piece of this process where we're looking at how to preserve and protect trees on private property, where essentially other communities around us have implemented ordinances that say if you are removing mature trees, you have to replace them and you have to mitigate that in some way, either through a placement or by paying a cost or in the new site plan, having something there. And that's even, it's on a spectrum based on the maturity of the tree, because obviously replacing a mature tree with one other tree doesn't address the canopy question in the same way.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so that is one of the ordinances that's a project that we're... One of our... Hey, look at Kim. Our many projects that's... Yeah, Anna Callahan is leading on that project as well. So, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Sixth regular meeting, Medford City Council, March 25th, 2025 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. President Bears. Present. Seven present, none absent. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records 25046 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved, in recognition of the 50th wedding anniversary of Richard and Cheryl Montecalvo, the warmest congratulations and best wishes on this joyous occasion are offered. For 50 years, Richard and Cheryl have shared a remarkable journey of love, commitment and devotion, serving as an inspiration to family. friends and your community. Your partnership is a testament to the strength of love, the power of unity, and the beauty of a lifelong commitment. In recognition of this momentous occasion, the City of Medford proudly honors this milestone, celebrating the cherished memories you've created and the legacy of love you continue to build. Therefore, be it so resolved, on behalf of the Medford City Council, I extend heartfelt appreciation and best wishes for continued happiness, health, and love in the years ahead. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, councilor Scarpelli. We're gonna have to wait for the clerk here for a minute. Anyone else want to comment on this item?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk. Please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean affirmative, negative, the motion passes their motion to take papers and inspection. I motion by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: I'll just go Pelley counter saying, President Bears, yes, affirmative, then the negative emotion. 25049 offered under suspension by Councilor Scarpelli in memory of William Billy Oganeski. Whereas the Medford City Council is deeply saddened by the passing of William M. Billy Oganeski, a lifelong resident of Medford and devoted public servant who passed away on March 15th, 2025 at the age of 73. And whereas Billy was a beloved husband of 51 years to Paula, a loving father to Tiffany Marino and her husband, Tori, and to Gerald and his wife, Danielle, a proud and devoted papa to Devin, Jerrica, Isabel, Tori and Nathan. and a caring brother, uncle, and friend to many. And, whereas, Billy honorably served the city of Medford at Oak Grove Cemetery for 50 years, during which time he became a familiar kind presence to many residents, forming lasting friendships and embracing the natural beauty and wildlife around him. And, whereas, Billy found joy in the simple pleasures of life, spending time with family, tending to his garden, enjoying a good breakfast at Polar Bear Restaurant, sharing laughter, cheering on Boston sports teams, and spreading warmth and kindness to those around him. And whereas Billy will be remembered for the most for the love he had for his grandchildren, whom he supported wholeheartedly in their endeavors, often with a smile, a kind word, and a shared chocolate chip cookie. And whereas the passing of Billy Oganoski is a profound loss to his family, friends, colleagues, and the entire Medford community, now therefore be it resolved that the Medford City Council sends its deepest condolences to the Oganoski family and honors the life and legacy of William M. Billy Oganoski for his dedication, service, and unwavering commitment to the community he loved.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And did we have a further amendment to dedicate the cemetery way and his name?
[Zac Bears]: No, thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I just wanted to make sure that was heard. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng, as amended by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, President Bears, yes seven affirmative none of the negative the motion passes to 5048 offered under suspension by Vice President Collins be resolved at the city council meet on April 8 and committee of the whole to go over parking department related matters. One the use of surveillance technology pursuant to the community control over public surveillance ordinance to. updates on the Green Line Extension parking program, three parking ordinance updates, section 78-173, municipal employee and municipal business parking. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Collins, does that sound good?
[Zac Bears]: All right, great. On the motion of Councilor Collins, Vice President Collins to approve seconded by seconded by Councilor Tseng Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng, President Bears. Yes. The records of the meeting of March 11th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Scarpelli and the records of the joint session of March 19th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Tseng. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Tseng and then maybe we can have a motion to join and approve to cut down on one roll call.
[Zac Bears]: Great. On the motion to join and approved by Councilors Scarpelli seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears? Yes. I have affirmative, none the negative motion passes. Maybe we could do the same here for reports of committees. 25037 offered by President Bears, Committee of the Whole, March 11th, 2025. 24033 offered by Vice President Collins, Planning and Permanent Committee, March 12th, 2025. And 25039 offered by President Bears, Committee of the Whole, March 18th, 2025. um for 037 that was the meeting with uh walk medford and the medford bicycle advisory commission to discuss safety improvements and the budget recommendations of the bike commission anything more on that motion to join the reports and great do you have anything more it was your kind of meeting do you have anything uh no it's um it's in the report uh in the
[Zac Bears]: Great. And we're going to try to have a further meeting on enforcement. Great. On the motion of Council Zahra to join and approve, seconded by Councilor Callahan, I'll go to Vice President Collins for the Planning and Permitting Committee report.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and on 25 or three nine committee of the whole March 18 2024 and 2025 sorry. This was when we discussed budget recommendations, and we can see the combined budget recommendations and other budget documents in the agenda tonight. On the motion of Council is our to join and approve seconded by Councilor Callahan Mr. Clark, please call it.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have affirmative, no negative, the motion passes. Hearings 25-032, proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance, 10 and 20 Revere Beach Parkway. The Community Development Board held a public hearing on this Wednesday, March 19th, relative to a petition by Nutter, McLennan, and Fish representing trends of real estate to amend the text of the Wellington Station Multifamily Overlay District. to amend the table of dimensional standards in section E, to add a footnote regarding front yard setbacks that coincide with restrictions for public agency buildings, to change the incentive bonus from certified to certifiable for LEED status, and to amend the definition section to add clarifying text to the definition of building coverage. to make it clear that it doesn't include building overhangs. A subsequent public hearing will be held on the same matter by the Medford City Council on March 25th, 2025 at 7 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chamber on the second floor of Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford MA, and via Zoom. A link to the public hearing will be posted no later than March 21st, 2025. Signed, Adam Herdeby, City Clerk. We did get a memo back from Community Development Board. They have recommended Approval, but they did unanimously 60 recommended approval of the zoning amendment with the following recommended revision to the definition of building coverage to be incorporated. And that reads as follows, building coverage, the maximum area of the lot that can be attributed to the footprint of the building's principle and accessory on that lot. Building coverage does not include surface parking. Building coverage also does not include any portion of the building above the ground floor that overhangs such ground floor. If the overhang does not exceed 10% of the footprint of the ground floor of the building, then the overhang is not part of the calculation of the building coverage. Overhangs greater than 10% are counted as part of the building coverage. And with that, I will open the public hearing to comments for, against, or in any other way on this project. And I noticed we have counsel from Nutter, McLennan, and Fish here, if you'd like to share anything and speak in favor, I'm assuming, of the project.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any questions? Seeing none, I know we've already heard from you once here, so thank you. I'll open it up again to anyone else who'd like to speak. As part of this public hearing in favor in opposition or otherwise you can come to the podium, or raise your hand on zoom and I will recognize you. All right, seeing none of the coin the public hearing closed. On the motion to approve by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Tseng. With the recommendations of the Community Development Board. Yep.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears? Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative, the motion passes. Petitions, presentations, and similar papers. 25045, Appeal of a Signed Permit Refusal, 42 Fulbright Street. We have here from the Law Office of Kathleen A. Desmond, LLC. Dear Clerk Hurtubise's, if enclosed for filing, please find the following documents. One, Notice of Appeal of Signed Permit Refusal, number S2400053. memorandum in support of appeal of denial of signed permit S-24-00-053 with supporting exhibits and table of cases and statutes, and three existing site plan. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kathleen A. Desmond, and this is regarding AIM Realty Medford LLC, 42 Fulbright Street, Medford, 02155, and the appeal of signed denial S-24-00-053. And I will recognize the petitioner. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Kathy. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli, then I have a couple of questions of other Councilors. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli, other Councilors, then I have a couple of questions. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Um, any further discussion second on the motion? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just had a couple questions. One, I know that the sales now about two and a half, three years. Have they done any construction at the site.
[Zac Bears]: I'll ask you to unmute. If you could just give us your name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: And any of those was fine.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I appreciate that context. It looks like there's some improvements to the private way as part of the site plan as well.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Okay. Any further questions by members of the Council? It was the motion of Councilors. I mean, my two senses. We could, and no offense Kathy, we could pay lawyers more money to talk about the sign more, but I don't think we're really going to get. It seems to me that we're just changing out the name of the car wash on a sign. And so my, my perspective is that I don't have a problem with that. But we do have a motion by Councilor Scarpelli to table pending for the legal review. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'm just saying we could go to KP Law and we could pay them to give us an answer, but that's just my perspective. Okay. The motion by Councilor Scavaglia was to table, I think it was for legal review by the legal, the mayor's legal team, which is KP. Do we wanna adjust that? Do we wanna include the first, just get something from the building department? Sorry, let me just unmute you, George.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, all right. I'll go to Councilor Saint and Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: It's just that it doesn't meet the current size of the sign ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think we need the law offices particularly but I'm going to go to Kathy in just a second but I've talked to Scott not about this specifically but. I think he's saying because they're saying that it's an expired special permit and not a pre-existing non-conforming use, that because it is a sign that is bigger than the signs allowed by the sign ordinance, he's required to deny it. That's how I'm reading what is presented here.
[Zac Bears]: But yeah, I think either we can just go forward or we have to go to the legal, I think that's kind of where we're at. So we have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli. to table this and request legal review of the petition, seconded by Councilor Leming, and I will go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: We have the motion and second of Councilor Scarapelli and Councilor Leming to table and refer to legal for review of the petition. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: No. Four in the affirmative, three in the negative. The motion passes and is tabled pending your review.
[Zac Bears]: 25040 offered by Vice President Collins resolution in support of the full time lecturers at Tufts University and their fight for a fair contract. Let me get the actual language here. Whereas the 125 full-time lecturers in the School of Arts and Sciences at Tufts have been unionized with SEIU 509 since 2016 and have been bargaining for their third contract since April 2024, seeking a fair contract that allows for both livable salaries and manageable workloads. Whereas FTLs at Tufts create and teach classes, grade exams, advise and mentor students, and perform essential services that keep Tufts running, including, in the case of many FTLs, coordinating academic programs, directing graduate admissions and degrees, and supporting extra and co-curricular activities. And whereas Tufts University prides itself on the high-quality educational experience provided to students, and valuing a quality educational experience means investing in teachers, And whereas lectures working conditions are students learning environments, and whereas the cost of living has increased 21% since 2020, while the average FTL salary has increased only 13.1%, and salaries for FTLs at Tufts ranked 12th out of 13 university among its institutional peers in the integrated post-secondary education data system IPEDS, and Whereas from 2019 to 2023, undergraduate enrollment in the School of Arts and Sciences grew by 12.4%, while full-time faculty growth was only 6.4%, leading to FTLs increasingly being overworked. And whereas Tufts promises a student-faculty ratio of 9 to 1 and an average class size of approximately 20, while in reality, many entry-level courses taught by FTLs have enrollments between 100 and 400 students, in which FTLs often serve as informal and formal advisors. and whereas Tufts University charges undergraduates the highest college tuition in Massachusetts and the fifth highest in the country and reported a $34 million surplus in the School of Arts and Sciences in academic year 2023-2024, and whereas Tufts leadership has continued to offer bargaining proposals that prioritize budget austerity over workers' health and livelihoods and has continued to reject proposals to increase salaries and make modest improvements in the direction of a living wage without adding to the burden of already unmanageable workloads. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we support the Tufts University Full-Time Lecturers Union, SEIU 509, and call upon Tufts University to prioritize investing in its teachers because both livable wages and sustainable workloads are essential to workers and to the university more broadly. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Any comments from members of the Council at this time? Councilor Scarpelli. One second. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further comments by members of the council? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation. You provide your name and address for the record at the podium, raise your hand on Zoom, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. One second here. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment from members of the public in the chamber or on Zoom? Seeing one in the chamber, not seeing any hands on Zoom, so we'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You're on.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by folks in the chamber or on Zoom? I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Seeing no further comment, I'll just throw in my two cents here. One of the most important lessons in political economy I learned is that we're basically living inside of a 75 year scam to disembed the economy from society. It's this idea that the economy exists outside of any context of humanity or community or sociology or anything else. And certainly we're seeing some of the worst effects of that now. And very often when we talk about Tufts University, it feels like they are trying to disembed themselves from our community. I think Tufts University itself is a community issue. When we talk about the dormitory argument or the many other unions who have come before this council to talk about how Tufts is treating them as an institution, or the students who have come before this council who had those same concerns, or the neighbors, the Medford residents who have serious concerns with how Tufts treats their immediate neighbors in the hillside. Students and workers and Medford residents together have very clear alignment and opposition, in my opinion, to how Tufts is choosing to act as an institution. And I can think of nothing more salient to that point than the idea that we are a host community and not a home. And I think whether you're a student or a worker or a neighbor or just someone who lives here in Medford, we would all do better if Tufts administration did better. So that's where I stand. And I'll probably have to make that speech a couple dozen more times in the next few months, depending, we'll see. But it's just how things go. And it's, you hear these same stories. So thank you for the folks who commented. We do have a motion to approve by Vice President Collins. There is an amendment by Councilor Scarpelli. Vice President Collins, do you accept the amendment? We could also do it as a B paper so that we could keep a clean resolution and have Councilor Scarpelli's item as a separate vote. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. It came in a little funky, but I think we got the picture. You'd prefer a B paper. I'm seeing a nod from Councilor Scarpelli that that's all right. So we'll have two votes. We'll have a B paper, which is to resolve to the mayor to settle the contracts that are outstanding, including some workers who've been without a contract for three years. And when you're ready on that, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. The second on the paper. Councilor Tseng, Yes, this is on the beat.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears yes 70 affirmative no negative the motion passes on the a paper which is the original resolution by Vice President Collins seconded by second by Councilor Callahan, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Seven or eight in the affirmative. The motion passes, and we can move to the next item. Thank you. 25.041 offered by Councilor Tseng resolution public engagement plan for FYI 26 budget be it resolved that the resident services and public engagement committee design implement a public engagement plan for the upcoming FYI 2026 budget Councilor Tseng. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng to refer paper 25041 to the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Is there any further discussion by members of the Council? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Any discussion by members of the public either in the chamber or on Zoom? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Second is Councilor Calderon.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm affirmative then the negative the motion passes. 25044 offered by Vice President Collins proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance neighborhood and residential, never heard residential and urban residential districts for referral to the Community Development Board. These are the NR and UR proposals referred out of the Planning and Permitting Committee for referral to the Community Development Board for their review and recommendation. And this would amend sections 94-2.1, 94-3.2, 94-4.1, and 94-12 of the zoning ordinance to create these districts. Again, this is just a referral, a legally required referral to the Community Development Board. There is a question and answer session on Thursday in this room on the matter. Community Development Board will hold a public hearing, and then the Council will hold a public hearing where we will hear whatever recommendations were made by the Community Development Board. Vice President Collins, anything you'd like to add?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, any further discussions? Any discussion by members of the public? Either in the chamber or on Zoom, you can come to the podium in the chamber or raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, I just wanna also thank Vice President Collins, Chair of the Planning and Permitting Committee, No spoilers, but I've heard that the Mass Municipal Association is interested in writing a feature on the zoning updates website page and the engagement process around this. So that has a lot to do with your work, Councilor Collins. So thank you for that.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 60 affirmative, one of the negatives. The motion passes. I will be brief. If folks have had a chance to review the letter that I wrote up summarizing the decisions that we came up with last week. And if folks have any comments, certainly, or edits, they're much appreciated. But we have first recommendation, maintain level service funding for the Medford public schools and city departments. Two, this is under new ongoing expenditures to increase the funding for the assessing department to implement the residential exemption. Three, increase funding for DPW engineering and facilities departments for improved road and bike safety, tree planting, and capital improvements. Four, fund a therapeutic recreation specialist and office manager in the recreation department and a citywide inclusion specialist. Five, fund a fire department dive team training and equipment. Six, increase funding for the city solicitor position. And then two, one-time expenses. One, or sorry, seven, the nexus studies for inclusionary zoning, linkage fees, and transportation demand management. And eight, planning to update the city's financial software. If folks read that, so that will be sent along along with everyone's individual the recommendations of all the individual Councilors that were submitted by memorandum or by email. What a Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And the letter is addressed to the Mayor with a copy to Chief of Staff Nazarian and Director Dickinson. Any further discussion by members of the Council on our recommendations? Seeing none, is there a motion? Motion to approve and refer to the Mayor by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callaghan. Is there any discussion by members of the public on the council's budget recommendations for fiscal year 2026? Either the podium or raising your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Looks like Vice President Collins has stepped away.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears? Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Communications from the Mayor. 25-047, offered by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehns, appropriation of free cash and retained earnings. Dear President Bears and city councilors, I respect the request that your honorable body approves the appropriations of one, excuse me, free cash in the amount of $737,927.88 on the following items, $680,927.88 for fire station planning. This covers expenses spent under city council resolution 19-484, which used short-term borrowing to start design work. and $57,000 to fund Vision Government Solutions contract to provide revaluation services for the assessor estate mandated 2026 revaluation. The balance of free cash before this vote is $28,343,997. 2. Retained earnings from the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund in the amount of $1,700,000.00 for a water main replacement project to mitigate lead or unknown services and improve capacity. The balance in retained earnings in the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund before this vote is $12,653,475.00. Finance Director Robert Dickinson and City Engineer Owen Wartella will be available to answer any questions respectfully. Submitted Brianne Alengo Kern-Mayer. Bob Owen.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Director Dickinson, just on the fire station, essentially, my understanding of this is that short-term borrowing was done under a council resolution, and then the idea is that that money would have been rolled over into the debt for the project, but because the debt exclusion failed, there's not gonna be debt for the project?
[Zac Bears]: All right, I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Any other questions or discussion on this paper? Seeing none, are there any motions? On a motion to approve by Councilor Callahan, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Is there any discussion by members of the public on this paper? You can raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium in the chambers. Yes. Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears? Yes, five in the affirmative, one in the negative, one absent, the motion passes. We received a communication regarding McCormick Avenue parcels, and we do have the MWRA loan order eligible for third reading. Both items? Okay. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to take papers 25-020 and 25-028 off the table, seconded by? Second. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. 25-020, transfer and conveyance of McCormick Avenue parcels. Give me one second here. So we, I believe, have tabled this requesting further information from the Affordable Housing Trust and the administration. And I have here, to the Honorable President and members of the City Council, from Lisa Ann Davidson, Chair, Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund, date March 21, 2025. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, on March 5th, 2025, the MAHTF met to discuss and review the resolution offered by the Mayor to the City Council to transfer and convey McCormick Avenue parcels. The MAHTF approved a motion to support the sale and transfer of the McCormick Avenue parcels, F1337 and F1338, subject to the City Council's approval for the purpose of funding the Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund to establish an affordable housing linkage through a nexus study and support affordable housing developments. Regarding the McCormick Avenue parcels, the assessor's office is valuing the two parcels individually at $350,000 each. The two parcels individually are undersized lots and not developable. The assessor's office has not factored in this condition, which would lower its assessed value. If the two McCormick Avenue parcels were combined through the doctrine of merger, the land would become developable, and according to the assessor's office, its value would be approximately $435,000. Board of Trustees would be pleased to discuss this matter further. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Lisa Ann Davidson, Chair, Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Is there a motion.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I do want to note when it comes to the free cash, what we heard last week was that there was 1 million in turnbacks, so underspending, and 6 million in unexpected local receipts. And a large amount of that was from exactly what you just said, Councilor Scarpelli, the investment of ARPA funds and city's cash balances in high interest accounts. They earned more than was expected in the budget. And again, that free cash number is as of 6-30-2024. I'm also inclined to say that, Yes, there's a lot of free cash right now and using it on one-time projects is what it's intended for, right? There's two truths. We have an operating budget that has a very tight margin when we look at the budget. And so recurring expenses, especially in an era of inflation and contracts and the compounding effect of the city's biggest expense, which is personnel contracts, that the operating budget can be very tight and we can have little to no money to spend on new recurring expenses. But essentially because of ARPA and the underestimating of some of the local receipts, basically the assumption that the economy will be worse than it ended up being, we did not lose as much money as we thought we would from the pandemic. And that's why we've ended up with the free cash balances that we have. And then because we had those balances and because interest rates were high, we made money on those balances we weren't expecting to make. So that's why we ended up with the balance that we have. I'm inclined to say that, you know, one-time expenses like a study is exactly what the one-time funds from a free cash thing should be used for. I'm also inclined to say that Corbett Avenue is a residential neighborhood where I don't know what you get from leasing the land. And, you know, I don't know how much more benefit you get from leasing the land in the long term and having two or three affordable housing units versus the sale of it for this purpose now. So I'm just going to say that. Councilor
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'm almost 100% sure that the conveyance of property is a two thirds of majority. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: The letter that we received from the Affordable Housing Trust, I know numbers have been thrown around. Personally, I think we should do all of these nexus studies at once. We should do the linkage, the inclusionary, whatever's needed for TDM and all the other linkage fees, I think we should just do them all.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Councilor Leming then Councilor Tseng and then we do have a DT on on zoom with their hand as well.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. There is no motion to table unless someone makes it and that motion is undebatable. So if someone makes it, we can't hear from Ms. McGor.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng suggested it. Aditi, we'd love to hear from you with what your thoughts are. Oh, I have to ask you on mute.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. What would we have to do to merge them? Is there a vote of the council required to do that?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And it sounds like just it sounds like that probably, whichever way we end up on this, it's probably not going to hurt us to have the parcels be merged or not merged.
[Zac Bears]: I meant to say that if we end up choosing not to sell the parcels, like let's say the ANR process goes forward and they're merged and then the council doesn't want to convey them. That's, it's not really, that's not a problem, is it?
[Zac Bears]: All right, I'll go to Councilor, thank you, and I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Give us one second here. We're having a technical issue. Yeah, but I don't know if we're broadcasting anymore, at least to YouTube. Well, let me just make sure we get this fixed. Oh, still going. All right.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I think we're good. Is there a motion on the floor. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to table seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan, any further.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Negative motions to 5028 loan order MWRA water bonds first reading February 25 2025. Advertised for second reading March 13th, 2025 in the Medford Transcript of the Somerville Journal. Eligible for third reading March 25th, 2025. Is there a motion or any further discussion? This is for the loan order for the MWRA zero interest plus rebate program to replace lines. On the motion to approve for third reading by Councilor Tseng seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears. Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. and the loan order is approved for third reading. Public participation. If anyone would like to participate on anything for three minutes, they can. And I have a hand on Zoom. Eunice Brown, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for the question. We did submit the amended draft to the mayor I think the Thursday the 13th, so two days after the regular meeting, we have not received back anything in writing formally from the mayor about her proposed changes. My understanding certainly is, you know, that did pass this council six to zero with one absent, and the mayor could send it off as amended right now. When we hear back from the mayor about Uh, if she wants to negotiate further, if there are changes, um, that she wants to make, uh, to the amendments that we proposed, we would definitely schedule another meeting to discuss that. Um, but that's the status of it now in terms of what happens in terms of a drop dead date and what happens before an elect a vote on a ballot. Uh, there's technically no drop dead date. Uh, this is all about will the legislature take it up and, uh, you know, it's kind of a black box. They don't have any disclosure or anything. Certainly they could, we could send it to them, you know, the first week in April, they could take it up the second week in April and we could have it done the third week in April, but that really all depends on them taking action. What we know basically from the Collins Center is that both drafts, the draft from the CSC as changed by the mayor and then the draft that from the mayor that we amended that there's nothing in any of those that is outside the scope of what the legislature generally approves for. for charters so we didn't include anything like rank choice voting or budget authority for the council or any of those types of things. We also have been told that the legislature prefers supermajority or near unanimity on homeworld petitions of this matter so it was sent you know our we voted six to zero with one absent in the past when we had sent up home rule petitions to create an elected charter commission. Those have been by votes of four to three. And so the legislature chose not to act on them. In terms of an education campaign, I don't know what the mayor's team would have planned around that or what information would be put forward on the city website, or what private entities, individuals or groups that might form around the ballot questions would do.
[Zac Bears]: That is kind of the reading of the tea leaves that we're trying to match up with. But end of March, early April is kind of what we were told. I think House Ways and Means generally puts out their draft, it's either the week before Patriots Day or the week of Patriots Day. So certainly if we could get it in before then, that might be sufficient. But Collins Center said last week of March, first week of April would be ideal.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, when we receive a formal response from the mayor, we'll schedule whatever's needed. Unless of course, that is that she sent the draft that we sent to her to the legislature, in which case there would not need to be any further meetings.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further public participation. Seeing none, are there any motions on the floor on the motion of adjourned by Councilor Callahan seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes 60 affirmative one absent the motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Present. President Bears. Present. 7 present, none absent. Meeting is called to order. First matter is the joint rules. Have folks had time to read the joint rules? Are there any comments from members of the Council on the joint rules?
[Zac Bears]: We can do that. Maybe we make it a motion to waive the reading and approve and then we can discuss it. Okay, then we don't have to vote 14 times. All right, so I have a motion and a second on the council. Is there a motion and a second on the school committee?
[Zac Bears]: Great. All right, any discussion from members of the council on the joint rules as proposed?
[Zac Bears]: Seeing none on the motion of Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll to approve the rules.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I've been affirmed and then the negative motion passes the council.
[Zac Bears]: And whatever it is on your agenda, I don't, did you have a number? I know on the school committee version of this. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Great. We had a meeting last night on recommendations. We're planning to send them over to your office, this council, to the mayor. I know you guys have had a budget process. I'll go to member, well, you should go to member Graham.
[Zac Bears]: What?
[Zac Bears]: I just had one question, Bob. Are you going to go into what the excess local receipts were?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think especially hearing that that's coming from interest on cash on hand or interest on investments, just knowing how much of that 6 million was from interest on cash we don't expect to have in the future. I'm just wondering how that excess local receipts affects our baseline revenue estimates for fiscal 26 essentially.
[Zac Bears]: All right.
[Zac Bears]: And just to clarify, so essentially, The balance was 34 million last at the end of 2020 on 630 23, but we appropriated 14 million so that's a minus 14 million. And then there was a turn back so under spending of a million, and then an unexpected. over overage and local receipts of 6 million and a big portion of that was from interest that we hadn't expected to earn because interest rates were high, right.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just wanted to clarify. sometimes people we didn't have $28 million of new money that was Oh, no, you know, it's a balance. We actually the free cash balance decreased by $6 million. All right. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Member Ruseau just made the point that 8 million of the state assessments is for charter schools. And go ahead Matt, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I just had one question on that, Bob. And I think for folks, this is the essentially the riverside development riverside chest done through the brownfields and right complicated thing are the pilot payments, more than what we will end up receiving in taxes from the properties.
[Zac Bears]: So it's a net gain, but it's shifting into new growth.
[Zac Bears]: I can't remember if they actually agreed to it last year or not, but last year there was at least an attempt to have a consensus on the local aid figures before June 30th, even though the final budget hasn't passed. I don't remember if that was just a request that the MMA put out or if they actually managed to do that. Nina's shaking. I can't remember either. that has been something that they've tried to do in the past to give us a little bit more certainty, or that we've at least asked for. And is that you, Erica?
[Zac Bears]: Any questions from members of the council at this time? I have a couple. Okay. Bob, the pension applications are based on the actuarial schedule, right? Yes. And that's fully funded in 2033? It's 2033 now. That'll be a good year.
[Zac Bears]: And they're going to come up with some sort of similar program and schedule for that.
[Zac Bears]: So 20, 60, 20.
[Zac Bears]: The ACFRS for fiscal 23 and 24, when will those be available? The 2023 is on the website right now. And 2024, I have to review it tomorrow.
[Zac Bears]: Great. It's the combined financial comprehensive annual comprehensive financial report. Yeah, it's the 100 something page document that, yeah, shows all of the annual audits, how everything was calculated, fund balances. So actually really helpful read to understand everything the city does.
[Zac Bears]: Keeps me up at night, I'll tell you that.
[Zac Bears]: But I just think it's useful for people to know that. that document shows essentially down to the dollar, where the money of the city goes. And it's a level of accounting that most institutions, businesses, and others in this country are not asked to, you know, meet. So, you know, even in the nonprofit industry that I'm in, there's, you know, a 2%. Basically, if it's 2% off, that's pretty much fine, is the general rule. Some organizations choose to go down to the dollar, but cities and towns have to. It has to be independently audited every year. And these reports show exactly where every dollar went. And I just think that's valuable information for people to understand that those are the standards that municipalities are held to and we meet those standards. So thank you for the work on it.
[Zac Bears]: Um, my last, uh, request of a council member if they could just make a motion. Just to request that, um the 25 estimate and the 26 proposed slash estimate motion by councillor Callahan seconded by seconded by councillor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk when you have the motion
[Zac Bears]: Yes. President Paris. Yes. I mean for when the negative motion passes. It was just for us. Do you, do you want to, you don't have to.
[Zac Bears]: We'll send it to you. Great. Is that what your mic was on for? Great. Is there anything else that you'd like to share at this time?
[Zac Bears]: Oh, we'll be seeing lots of you the next three months. It's our time to see you every week. Yeah. Almost.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director. I'll turn it over to Vice Chair Graham.
[Zac Bears]: You can motion to not accept the song number on top of it. It doesn't work.
[Zac Bears]: I think it's just the two of us. John, you have to go on video so we can see, you'd be embarrassed. No, okay.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I will just say, I'm not there for my birthday because I was in New Orleans. It doesn't sound exactly the way, maybe.
[Zac Bears]: That's your motion.
[Zac Bears]: Is there a motion to adjourn? Motion by Councilor Lazzaro to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: City Council Committee of the whole meeting, March 18 2025.
[Zac Bears]: Ah, there we go. Thank you. Action and discussion items 25 and Vice President Collins is present. So seven present. 25039 resolution regarding schedule of the annual budget process for fiscal year 2026 be resolved by the Medford city council that the council president requests councilor submit budget recommendations to the clerk by Thursday, March 13th for consideration in a committee of the whole meeting on Tuesday, March 18th at 6pm. That's tonight. be it further resolved that based on the budget ordinance and discussions with the administration, the city council and city administration will follow the following budget schedule for fiscal 26. By March 13th, councilors submit individual budget recommendations. March 18th at 6 p.m., committee of the whole meeting to discuss budget recommendations. Tomorrow night, March 19th at 6 p.m., there's a joint meeting of the city council and the school committee in the chambers to receive a financial update and discuss the fiscal 26 budget process. Next Tuesday, March 25 2025 assuming we report out recommendations tonight, the city council will have a collective recommendation to send to the mayor. Last year we also sent everyone's individual recommendations so all of that will be included. From April 15th to May 21st, the council would hold preliminary budget meetings with department heads. And by Friday, May 31st, the mayor would submit a comprehensive budget proposal to the city council. And then there's a list of the draft schedule of the meetings from April 15th to May 21st. Those are Tuesday, April 15th, Tuesday, April 29th, Wednesday, April 30th, Tuesday, May 13th, Tuesday, May 20th, and Wednesday, May 21st. and we have budget recommendations from everybody except for me. So we will move through that. Just a quick overview. Essentially what we did last year is individual councilors discussed their budget proposals, and then we, the councilors made a motion to include some of them in a joint proposal that came from the council as a body as a whole, and then we submitted that joint recommendation, collective recommendation, as well as the individual recommendations from individual Councilors. So I think that can basically be our process again. If anyone else wants to make a motion to do it differently, I think that's totally fine. And we can go around, if folks wanna signal in or raise their hands on Zoom and share what their recommendations are for the budget for fiscal 26. I see Councilor Leming and I'll recognize Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Anyone want to go next? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli, and I will make sure that your list is included in the packet that goes out after the meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Councilor Callahan, and then Councilor Tsengh, and then Councilor Collins. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. I'll go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: It's a little quiet. Shane, do you think you could turn up the Zoom audio a little bit? Oh, I can do that. Thanks for showing me.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you and I'll go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, everyone. Do we have any more discussion? Do folks wanna talk about any of the items? I've been trying to keep a list here of the things where I heard multiple Councilors raise the same items. So I'm happy to go over that, but I wanna go back to other Councilors first, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. My list might've been a little bit shorter. I definitely had the therapeutic, and I'm gonna say who specifically mentioned them mainly in their written documents, or if they spoke them out loud, it doesn't mean we don't all support these things. But I heard the therapeutic recreation specialist and office manager in the recreation department, and that was Councilors, Leming, Scarpelli, Collins, and Sang all mentioned that. with an estimated cost of 125,000. There was the increase in funding for DPW and engineering, including a focus on the Bicycle Commission recommendations. You know, Councilor Scarpelli mentioned the funding for DPW staff and Councilors Lazzaro, Sang and Collins mentioned funding for the Bicycle Commission recommendations and Councilor Callahan recommended an additional staff position in the DPW. So that was, um, five folks mentioned that. Department, um, increasing funding for the city solicitor position. We had Councilor Scarpelli Collins and saying Councilor Collins provided an estimate of $36,000. We had the fire department dive team, uh, from Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Collins also mentioned it in her, uh, comments and that's $122,900. 33 or 93, one of those numbers. And then there was a general, kind of two more general items. One was maintaining funding at level service and level staff levels for the schools, the library, community liaisons, translation services, rodent prevention, and grant funded positions. And that was Councilor Collins and Tseng. And then there was also updating the city's financial software, which was Councilors Collins and saying, and then I think everything else was, um, folks, individual, um, recommendations. Does that sound right? Did I, did anyone advocate for something that, um, advocate for one of those things that I didn't mention your name or hear something else mentioned where there were at least two Councilors who were advocating for it? All right. Now, I'm happy to take these recommendations from this meeting and put together a document to go on the agenda for next week's meeting that's kind of a collective summary of those top six priorities. And then if councilors, you know, either want to stick with the letter or document that they send in, or if they want to write something up that can go in a packet that will go to the mayor about their specific priorities, we can include that as well for next week's regular meeting and send that along to the mayor. Obviously everyone has to vote for it, but that would be the, I think the next steps here. Any discussion? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Great. On the motion of Vice President Collins to take these six recommendations and I will put together a memo and then we can change the wording at the regular meeting next week. Anyone can submit any changes and thoughts around it. And then also if folks wanna submit or resubmit or change or amend their initial letters and submit those for the packet as well, that's acceptable. I'll go over the six again, but I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro first.
[Zac Bears]: If you'd like to amend anything that you submitted, you can send it to the clerk and that would be great. And then we'll attach that all to the agenda item. And if you don't, I'll just attach whatever you already sent. So the six items were funding a therapeutic recreation specialist and office manager in the recreation department, increasing funding for the DPW and engineering, including around the bicycle commission priorities, increasing funding for the city solicitor, funding a fire department dive team, maintaining funding and level service and staffing, I'm gonna say that's a general principle and then I'll also list the specifics. I don't think any of us, I think we all, is it fair to say we all support that there's a level of service and staffing in every department? Or I'm seeing a thumbs up from Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think level service, just from my one perspective, you know, you can make arguments that you can provide the same services moving things around. There's also the two and a half plus, I mean, we don't know what the revenue estimate is yet, so that's another piece of, we're starting kind of here, and then we'll hear what the budget discussions are, but I do see Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks I'll go to Councilor Callahan and Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: I did have, I had under DPW, I had a couple items around the capital plan and increasing capital spending that I was gonna try to figure out how to word. I didn't have the nexus study. I will say we did receive, or I received an email. I'm not sure if we all did. about the McCormick Avenue parcels as relates to funding the NEXUS study today, earlier today. I only had it coming from you, Matt. So I only included things that had at least two people on it, but if anyone else also mentioned the NEXUS study and I missed it, I can include that.
[Zac Bears]: I think it's linkage fees and inclusionary, but Matt, you can explain it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Council Member. I go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: And Matt, just so I'm understanding it here, and it sounds like I was understanding it wrong. I thought we had to do one study that was going to help us price out affordable housing, like inclusionary zoning. link all the linkage fees and maybe even TDM, but it sounds like those are three separate studies or at least no, I'm kind of Yeah, it's I've had a lot of discussions with planning about this.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Okay, great. And it sounds like maybe we need to get all of the heads in a meeting at some point. I'm going to put this in, Councilor Callahan put their name behind it. But also it sounds like we need to get all the heads in the room around the specific studies. We need to update these specific buckets and make sure that we fund all of them. I think it'd be great to use, to do that as soon as possible. So I'll put that in and I'll wordsmith that. Is there anything, so I had the maintaining the level service. And the specific list was for the schools, library, community liaisons, translation services, road and control, and grant funded positions in the planning and health departments. And then we had updates to the city's financial software that that should be a priority. I've added in the nexus study for the linkage, all the linkage fee categories. And I'm just including affordable housing and inclusionary zoning in there as well. Is there, so those are the seven and we had a vice president Collins motion. I did want to put one other thing out there. I know I didn't submit a memo. You know, we discussed and I believe we passed a B paper about the need for funding for the residential exemption. and that that needed to be funded at budget time in order for the assessing department to have the capacity to move us towards having a residential exemption. And I believe we voted seven to zero to try to do that this year. So I just wanted to put that out there. I think that's a, you know, the budget is a piece of that, a big piece of that project, getting a residential exemption, getting the city in a position where if the council were to vote for a residential exemption in December, there's enough capacity to actually implement that. So, and that's basically been what the justification has been the whole time is if we don't have that We haven't done the prep work, so we can't vote it. And I know we voted, I think it was Councilor Scarpelli's B paper around, we need that, we wanna do that this year. So I'll go to Vice President Collins and then Councilor Scarpelli, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: All right, so I will include that as well. I believe Ted mentioned, sorry, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, this will be the eighth item. Ted mentioned two staff positions, so I will work around that initial discussion as I work up this memo for next week. All right, any further discussions? Seeing none on the motion of vice president Collins a seconded by Councilor Tseng Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Any further discussion on the budget process or recommendations before we adjourn?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, there's a joint session council and school committee tomorrow at six in the chamber, and we should be getting a presentation from the finance department.
[Zac Bears]: Great, absolutely. And I think a few Councilors will be on zoom as well. So, Vice President Collins at least.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Thank you. Is there a motion to adjourn. Council is our to adjourn seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, I'll be brief. And I'll just say that I think especially for Medford Square and West Medford Square, trying to look at a little bit more density, I think, is important. So just I'll leave it there for now. I appreciate the framework discussion. I think it's a really helpful overview. And I have some questions about Harvard Street in South Medford as well. maybe a little bit of other questions about the main street and medford street quarters but i'll leave that for future meetings thank you great thank you president bears go next to councilor Leming thank you uh first just uh
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thank you. Just a couple things. I think one, when we talk about lot size I think we need to be also thinking about Like, for example, in West Medford, the lots that are basically small industrial buildings between Canal Street and the train tracks and High Street, right? Like, those lots, as they exist today, maybe couldn't bear something that they could bear if one or two were combined. And so I don't want to limit the zoning based on assuming that lots are going to stay the way that they are. And just two other things. I think it might be valuable to put like a thick black line or some other demarcation to Vice President Collins's point around the zones that have already been approved versus the ones where we're discussing them going forward, just so that folks can see what has been done already and what needs to be done. And then just third, I think there's, as part of this, I think, and I've mentioned this before to folks, but I just want to bring it up here. I think there's some value to thinking about a UR3 district that would be a four-story by right, and I can't think of a better name for it than to say an MX2.5 district that's somewhere between the MX2 and the MX3 district in terms of intensity and density. just because I think we're now getting into the place where there are parts of the city, especially in Medford Square and along Main Street, and in West Medford Square to an extent where we just need a tool that's a little bit more dense than the MX-2, but not quite the MX-3. And I think that there's probably value to a residential only four story structure in some parts of these corridors where it wouldn't be applicable in a neighborhood. So just want to put that out there as well.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Yeah, I think for me, certainly as to question one, by right for detached in any residential district and by right for attached or detached in the NR districts or for anything other than a multiplex, I think makes a lot of sense. For question two, I'd like to see that go up to 1,000 or 1,100. I think that's a more reasonable size of a single, relatively small apartment unit. For three, personally, I would just only be interested in seeing two ADUs on the same lot if it was, if there was an attached ADU and then there was a detached ADU to preserve a historic structure or an accessory structure. I don't really see the need for multiple ADUs on the same lot. And then for four, I personally would not want to allow ADUs to be short-term rented. I think the short-term rental has been a really tough impact on the housing market and it's just not the way to to move on that. I don't think we want to see people building a lot of these units for short-term rental purposes. I think we want to see them building them to make sure that people can live here year-round. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mic check. Check, check, mic. Test, sounds good. Are you with us till the bitter end tonight? Medford City Council committee the whole March 11 2025 is called to order Mr. Please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: There'll be a meeting. of the Committee of the Whole. Today at 6 p.m., City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, to discuss paper 25037 offered by Councilor Lazzaro. This is to discuss pedestrian and bicycle safety in the city, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we invite representatives of the Medford Bicycle Advisory Commission, Walk Medford, and the City Administration to discuss pedestrian and bicycle safety on the city's streets and sidewalks and crosswalks. being further resolved. And this was part of the original resolution, which just comes from that the city council will work with DCR and our state delegation to make improvements to the crosswalk where Professor Dan Dill was killed as outlined in the email request by neighbors. And we also have had another fatality due to a collision right near here by the highway at the Salem Street Rotary Route 60. And I do have a communication from Director Blake that I can talk to that as well. But first I will go to Councilor Lazzaro, and then we'll hear from our invited folks. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Yes. I just want to read quickly and you can come up and this'll be very fast. I'm just going to read two emails. One was from Todd Blake from Friday. It was hello, Councilors. Unfortunately, as you're aware, There were two recent and tragic traffic crashes resulting in pedestrian fatalities in Medford. I wanted to inform you that the State Mass Department of Transportation, Salem Street Rotary, and DCR, Mystic Valley Parkway at Lakeview and at High Street Rotary are working on plans to improve safety in these areas. We hope the final improvements will significantly improve upon existing conditions and hopefully be implemented soon. I can't speak for either agency on their specific plans or timeline, et cetera, but I am hopeful. Sincerely, Todd Blake, Director of Traffic and Transportation. And then also some residents have been reaching out to different departments and there was a response that was shared with me from mass dot around Salem Street Rotary, and it was our current concept plan focuses on realigning. the curbing in and around the rotary to significantly reduce the width of the circulating roadway. Modifying the radii for the connections entering and exiting the rotary should reduce travel speeds, increasing safety for vehicles and vulnerable road users. The modifications are being targeted for implementation this construction season as part of an ongoing interstate resurfacing project on this section of I-93. This approach will enable us to expedite the work necessary for improvements to pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between the east and west sides of the rotary. So those are the two communications I've received. And I also just wanted to thank our Bicycle Commission folks. I know this isn't the only thing we're here to talk about these two specific areas in these two specific incidents. I know you've been working on and have a plan, the city's bike plan that you've been working to update. So very encouraged to hear about that and hopes for investing more into the infrastructure. So I'll turn it over to you. And if you could just give us your name and address for the record, and we'll hear from you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I did ask the clerk to circulate that document to everybody. To Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just one second Councilor Lazzaro. Thank you. And I just wanted to know, Emily has her hand up, so I'll go to you and then I'll go to Emily if that works. Great.
[Zac Bears]: Emily was the chair. You are the new chair. Yes. Chair recognizes Emily O'Brien. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: You should be able to now. Sorry about that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Emily.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you. Do we have comments from other Councilors at this time? Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Councilor Hsieh.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comments by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there anyone from the public who'd like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I'll just note what council has already noted is that we're going to A, have more meetings on this issue. We hope to have a meeting specifically around the enforcement issue and what we can do there. We also are having upcoming budget meetings and it sounds like councilors are gonna take these recommendations into consideration when we make some recommendations to the mayor as she puts together the city budget. And we can keep pushing on the, on the issues that we can push on. You know, we don't have the ability to add things to the budget, and we don't have the ability to hire positions but we can certainly make it a part of our, our recommendations and conversation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion or public comment at this time?
[Zac Bears]: Sure, yes. And working in collaboration with the department on that, that was great. I think the whole list is good. I think if there's something, either a lower cost thing that we can try to do right now or a top priority where that's the thing we need the most at this moment, that's always a helpful insight to have as well. and you can just feel free to share that by email with one of us and we'll make sure it gets around.
[Zac Bears]: You can always CC the clerk as well. If you'd ever like us all to see something, send it to Adam. All right, thank you. Are there a motion on the floor? A motion to keep the paper and committee in a turn? By Councilor Leming, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes, meeting is adjourned, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins for reading this resolution. I lost a friend who's very close to me. A lot of people in this city are very sad that he passed away. It's obviously hard to talk about. I'm not going to speak too much about it because I think we're going to be here for a few hours and I want to be able to run this meeting. But I appreciate all the support that people have said over the past week, and my thoughts are with his family and our Medford High School class of 2011, who is missing him very much. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: All opposed motion passes to 4033 offered by Vice President Collins planning and permitting committee February 26 2025 report to follow.
[Zac Bears]: All those in favor, I oppose the motion passes to 4468 offered by Councilor Tseng committee of the whole March 4 2025 report to follow I guess technically this should be me but I'll go to you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. On the motion to approve the committee report by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Now to Councilor Leming. 24069, 24073, 24354, offered by Councilor Leming, Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, March 5th, 2025. I can't, I don't know if there's something going on, but this is Councilor Leming, March 5th, 2025, Resident Services and Public Engagement, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you on the motion of Councilor Leming to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of councils are to take paper to 5043 out of order seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. I opposed motion passes to 4053 petition for amendment to a common victors license by Mrs. Murphy's. Excuse me, Mrs. Murphy's is requesting Barry Rafferty writing seeking to extend business hours to 1am. As you're aware liquor license already allows for that and it's crucial for my business, we find ourselves particularly on Chevalier nights asking our customers to vacate the premises. and it is upsetting for all parties. Thank you for your consideration, best, Barry Rafferty. And I also note for the discussion from the clerk is that there's especially a desire for them to be open late on St. Patrick's Day. This is their first St. Patrick's Day open in Medford Square. So I'll go to Barry, who I now see is here. If he wants to share anything, yes, if you don't mind. If he wants to share anything more, and then I can talk a little bit about where we are procedurally with all of this.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. So I will note that the clerk's office and the planning office have reviewed the city's zoning and special permits for extended hours for restaurants are not for our zoning. All we need to do here is amend common victors licenses. In terms of doing that going forward, the clerk's office and the planning department are working to develop a set of paperwork for that. It's not done yet. So that's why we're, we have this email from you right here. I know you've filled out a ton of forms for the city and wouldn't have minded filling out one more, but that's why this is presented the way it's being presented right now. So with that, I will turn it over to councillors for discussion. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Councilor Lazzaro has moved to approve the amendment to the common mixers license to extend the hours to 1 a.m. I got a second from Councilor Tseng. Would you like to speak on it? Okay. Everyone wants a second. Is there any further discussion by members of the Council on the motion to approve? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public? If you want to say anything else, Barry, or if there's anyone else who'd like to say anything, you can either make a line behind the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. None from Barry. He said his piece. Thank you. Anyone else want to comment on this vote? We got one. Okay. We've got some people in favor. Thank you. Nice to start on something I think we can seemingly all agree on. I think no hands on zoom. So, no further discussion by members of the council on the motion. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: No hearings public hearing notice Medford Community Development Board January 22 2025. City Council February 11 2025 chapter 94 zoning the Medford Community Development Board shall conduct a hearing on January 22 2025 after 630pm. via zoom remote video conferencing relative to the following proposed amendments to the city of menford zoning ordinance and zoning map one amend section 94 dash 2.1 division into districts to add Salem Street corridor district to amend section 94 dash 6.0 general regulations to insert a new subsection to create the new green score zoning regulation and to state the applicability standards and calculation methodology therein. Three, amend section 94 dash 3.2 table of use regulations table a by incorporating the Salem Street quarter district into the existing table, and to designate the uses permitted there in for amend section 94 dash 4.1 table of dimensional requirements table be by incorporating the Salem Street quarter district and to state the dimensional requirements therein. Five, amend section 94-12 definitions to amend and add various definitions. Six, amend section 94-9.0 to insert a new subject section to create the Salem Street Corridor District. Seven, amending the zoning map to create a new Salem Street Corridor District and to change the zoning district designation of various properties to place them within said district as shown on map entitled quote, Salem Street Corridor Zoning dated December 8th, 2024. Eight, amend section 94-11.7 site plan review to incorporate the green score regulation by adding submission requirements for site plan review and modifications and establish a waiver process. Zoom link to the meeting is also posted on the city website calendar. A subsequent public hearing will be held on the same matter by the Medford City Council on February 11th, 2025 at 7 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chamber on the second floor of Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford MA, and via Zoom, a link to the public hearing to be posted no later than November 29th, 2024. So that is the original notice. The Community Development Board held a public hearing across three meetings on this matter in January, February, and March. The City Council opened its public hearing February 11 2025 and continue to this meeting, March 11 2025. We have two papers before us tonight, paper 24515 and 24499. The first is 515 on the Salem Street neighborhood quarter district and 499 on the green score. There are also the proposed amended text of both items in the council's packet and attached on the council's meeting and agenda portal. How I'm going to do this is I'm going to open the public hearing on each item. Well, I'm gonna open the public hearing. We'll hear first on Salem Street, and then we'll hear from councillors from the public. There'll be motions made, and we'll take a vote on that, and I will close the public hearing portion of the public hearing on Salem Street, and then we'll move to the portion of the public hearing on the green score. and follow the same process. So with that, I'm going to reopen the public hearing and recognize Vice President Collins, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Chair recognizes Emily Innis, Innes Associates.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. That's some great information, Vice President Collins and Planner Ennis. With that, I will go to members of the council for comments or questions, please. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Any further comments by members of the Council? Seeing none, we will open the public hearing on the Salem Street Neighborhood Corridor District. I'm going to go through a little bit of how this is going to work. So we are going to talk about the Salem Street Neighborhood Corridor District. Each person speaking will have three minutes to speak. If you're in the room and you'd like to speak, you can make a line behind the podium. If you'd like to bring a chair out, if that is helpful for you, that's absolutely fine. If you'd like to speak on Zoom, please raise your hand. If you are on Zoom and you would like to speak, I please ask you to rename yourself to a first and last name. We have had issues in the past with people whose names were not listed on Zoom not being real people and causing us a little trouble. So if you could please rename yourselves. I'm going to turn that power on right now. if you'd like to speak, but yes. So we'll move to public comment. It'll be three minutes. There'll be a timer. I will give you a 30 second warning and we will hear from everyone once before we hear from anyone again. If you were speaking a second time, you'll be able to speak for one minute. So with that, if you'd like to speak, please make a line at the podium and we'll get started. And this is for people in favor, against, or who have a more complicated position on the issue. I will also note that we received a large number of email comments today. I'm asking the clerk to include those as part of the record, which he will do. Only two of those email comments actually requested that I read those comments. And one of them messaged me that they're here tonight and they'll just be speaking to them. So I will read one comment into the record sometime, maybe when we need a break. With that, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. and you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Alex on Zoom. Alex, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes. And then iPad on Zoom, if you could please rename yourself to give us your name. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead. Here you go. You should be able to now. Great. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: His address is 30 Right Ave in Medford. Thank you. Continue. Thanks. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Going to go to Miranda on Zoom. Miranda, name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just very quickly on that, on the 3A, we passed the zoning in 2023 on the 3A zoning. Just wanted to note that. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Sneha on Zoom. Sneha, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. We'll go back to Zoom. We'll go to Zachary Chertok. Zachary, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to zoom. I'm going to go to Caitlin Robinson, Caitlin name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just want to say before we go back to Zoom, we haven't had a chance to hear from you, Mr. Fenton, but I personally want to say I appreciate you do some great posting on Facebook of the history of Medford, photos of Medford, and I, for one, just really appreciate it. Thank you. We'll go back to Zoom. I have, yep, I have Michael von Korf. Name and address for the record. Michael, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Before I go back to the podium just if Rebecca and iPad if you could please rename yourselves, so that to a first and last name I'll recognize you once you do that. But we'll go back to the podium, name and address for the record please and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go back to Zoom. Rebecca Davidson, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And just to your point, I'm not aware of, certainly not as part of this process studies of the kind that you're, exactly what you're talking about have not been done for South Medford or West Medford that have not been done for Salem Street. That has not happened. There have been studies that have been done throughout this process through the comprehensive plan process by the consultant. And I think the general consensus and what Councilor Collins said is we could say, if everything that could possibly be built under this zoning were to exist, what would the conditions look like? But that would not be an accurate representation of what's actually going to happen. I'm sorry, that's the buzzer, because you had a little extra time left. And when we talk about the studies that happen when specific projects are put forward, Those are done, yes, the person who pays for them is the person the proponent of the project, but they are reviewed by the city staff and the city's boards and commissions that review those applications so there is a public element of that process as well city experts and the city's boards and commissions.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, but it will happen on a project by project basis.
[Zac Bears]: On all of the notifications, a site plan review process or a special permit, there are state laws that govern that, direct abutters are notified, but also all of those projects appear on, it's direct abutters and abutters within a certain radius, but also all of those projects appear on a public agenda, either of the Zoning Board of Appeals or the Community Development Board, and very occasionally of this body.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Appreciate your comment. I'll go to Benjamin on Zoom. Benjamin, name and address for the record and iPad, if you could please rename yourself.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to the podium, name and address for the record. You have three minutes. Oh, sorry, Ken, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go back to Zoom. Go to Jared Nussbaum, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. iPad, once again, if you'd like to speak, email me your name, change your name. Otherwise, I'm not gonna recognize you, but we're gonna go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We're going to go to William Clark on Zoom. William, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Rebecca on Zoom. Rebecca, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes. You're on. Rebecca, we can't hear you, but you are unmuted.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Zoom. I'm going to go to Cynthia Estramera. Cynthia, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. going to go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You have 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna go to Anna Gunning on Zoom. Ada, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to take us back to Zoom. Once again, I'm going to ask IPAD and JMN, please rename yourselves with your first and last name if you want to be recognized. We'll go to Andrew McRobert. Andrew, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Going to go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You have 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Before I go back to Zoom, Once again, iPad and D Silva, please rename yourselves with a thank you. Donna, iPad, if you could please rename yourself with a first and last name to be recognized. I'm going to go to Martha Andrus. Martha, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go back to Zoom. I'm going to go to Nathan Kando. Nathan, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll return to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go back to Zoom. I'm going to go to Donna Silva. Donna, name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes. Donna, I've requested that you unmute yourself. You should see a button on your screen that says unmute. All right, Donna, we'll come back to you. I'm gonna go to Jennifer O'Callaghan. Jennifer, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go back to the podium, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Please, please take your comments outside. If you're gonna comment, there's been a lot of conversation and everyone's gonna be respectful and I'll give you another 15 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. We've had a good night, y'all. We've had a good night. And I just want us to try to respect everybody who comments. We've had claps at the end, depending on who we support, that's fine. Please just keep the rest of the disruptions to a minimum so that we can hear from everyone in an equitable manner. And I appreciate. your respect for the process and for civic engagement. I'm going to go back to Zoom. I'm going to go to Jean Mizzo in one second, but iPad and Janine's iPad, please rename yourselves to a first and last name to be recognized on Zoom. Jean, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go in a second to Megan on Zoom, but if iPad and Eunice could just rename themselves to a first and last name to be recognized. Megan, name and address for the record. Megan, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: So you have 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Cheryl. We'll go to Zoom, go to Janine. Janine, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Janine, I've hit the ask to unmute button. If you could hit the unmute button. All right, we'll come back to Janine. I'm gonna try Donna Silva again. Donna, I'm going to ask you to unmute. Hi Donna you have three minutes, name and address for the record please.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can. Oh, we could for a second but then you muted. We can hear, we can hear you now.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I do want to note that this is part of a citywide rezoning, we are looking at Medford Square and West Medford and every part of the city. Thank you. I'm going to go back to the podium name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'll answer when you're done.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And Councilor Collins can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe this is a $100,000 contract over 18 months for NS Associates. Go to the podium. Actually, I gotta go to Zoom, sorry. I'm gonna go to iPad who has hopefully emailed me that they are Pat Hanson. So thank you, Pat. I'm asking you to unmute. If you could click the unmute button. Pat Hanson, iPad on Zoom. All right, Pat, we'll come back to you. I'm gonna go to Janine Senkabaugh. Janine, name and address for the record, please. I've asked you to unmute and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I just wanted... Just wanted to note that we had a meeting at six o'clock today, specifically on the traffic and safety issue. We focused on the Salem Street Rotary, and we received an update from our traffic and transportation director, as well as I read out an update from MassDOT about their plans for construction this season to address safety concerns at the Salem Street Rotary. So you can go back and watch that on YouTube right now, or on Medford Community Media in a day or two. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes and then we'll come back to you, Pat Hanson.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're gonna go back to Zoom. I'm gonna go to Pat Hanson. Pat, you have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, if you can just shut off your other device. Thank you. Oh, yeah, you're gonna you're gonna need to mute your other computer or TV.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, the echo is still there. I may have spoken too soon. If you have another computer or a TV that's putting out sound, that's the issue.
[Zac Bears]: Is that clear? That sounds good. I'll give you three minutes starting now. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilors will speak once the public comment period has concluded. You have two minutes if you'd like to say anything else.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and I appreciate your working with me to make sure you can speak. Thank you. All right, I'm going to go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go back to Zoom. I'm going to go to Teresa Marzilli on Zoom. Teresa, name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. You go to the podium name and address the record please you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to Zoom, Jessica Parks. Jessica, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go back to the podium. Name and address for the record please you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Gary Marinelli on Zoom. Gary, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Gary? Gary, you're unmuted, but we can't hear you. I'm going to try to ask you to unmute again. Gary, if you could speak now, you are unmuted. All right, Gary, it seems like you're having a technical issue, so we'll come back to you. I will go to Jessica Healy on Zoom. Jessica, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go back to Zoom. I'm gonna try Gary again, Gary Marinelli. Gary, I'm gonna ask you to unmute and we'll try again. If you say something into your microphone, Sorry, Gary, for some reason your microphone's not working. I apologize. I'm gonna go to Eunice, Eunice Brown on Zoom. Eunice, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to Zoom. Gary, we're going to try again. Gary Marinelli, we're going to try you once more. I'm requesting you to unmute. Can you hear me now? We can hear you now, Gary. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Someone has a phone going off. Could you please just take it outside? Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Gary.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to zoom out to go to Ren Bean Ren name and address for the record you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And if folks could please take their conversations outside. One second, Barry, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're going to go back to Zoom. Going to Zoom. I've carried Denny on Zoom. Carrie, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're gonna go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. to go to zoom I have Donna Messina on zoom Donna name and address for the record please you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're gonna go to Sue Brown on Zoom, the last hand on Zoom. Sue, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. There's another hand on Zoom, but we'll go to the podium first. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go back to Zoom. Harrison Green, name and address for the record please. Harrison.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, I think we're in person from here on out. Of course, someone can always raise their hand and prove me wrong but name and address for the record please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Stay at the podium, name and address for the record, please, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: 30 seconds and I'm sorry to hear that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: 30 seconds, Nate.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: That's on our agenda for a couple months. That's our agenda, so yeah. This is happening in every part of the city.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: There were several people who were given the address of Salem Street.
[Zac Bears]: There's Lambert Street, Garfield Street, Farragut Avenue, Vine Street, Everett Street, Almont Street. I can continue to name the streets if you want.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: So, Washington Street.
[Zac Bears]: That's a complicated question.
[Zac Bears]: Well, let's just have you finish it up.
[Zac Bears]: And as regards Mystic Avenue, I'd recommend folks go to medfordma.org slash zoning. You can see the zoning we passed for Mystic Avenue. Andy described it pretty well. It's a first floor commercial and then up to, I believe, 10 stories with four more incentive stories up to 14. So it's a pretty intense proposal for Mystic Avenue. We'll go to the podium and then back to Zoom and then the podium again. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Zoom and then I'll come back to Zoom. I'm going to go to James Torres. James, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And before I come back to you, we haven't had anyone speak for a second time yet. Is there anyone else in person or on zoom who would like to speak for the first time? Please raise your hand now. All right, seeing none, we'll go to the podium for one minute. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go for a second time to the podium. Name and address for the record. You have one minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. They've been addressed record of one minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Lisa Serio. Lisa, you haven't spoken yet. Name and address for the record, please, Lisa. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to the podium. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna go back to the Zoom. Carrie, you'll have one minute. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Carrie. Name and address for the record you have one minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Dave. All right, I got two emails to specifically requested that I read them into the record and then I'm going to declare this portion of the public hearing closed. We have Tina LaVoy, dear President Bears, I'm emailing you with my opposition of the current new zoning on Salem Street. I apologize, I'm having issue with my Zoom. I wanted to email you with my opposition. My name is Tina LaVoy, 128 Sheridan Ave, Medford. Thank you. Then I had Nick Ulig. Hello, Councilors. In advance of tonight's Council meeting, which I will unfortunately not be able to attend, I wanted to voice my very strong support for the Salem Street zoning proposal. I'd like to request that Councilor Bears reads these comments into the record if possible. I moved to Medford last year and I live in the Salem Street corridor just a block away on Tainter Street. My family chose Medford for its schools, parks, friendly neighborhoods, and good mix of urban forms. We love the lively character of Medford Square and High Street, but also the quieter tree-lined streets in historic districts. We want to see Medford continue to develop while maintaining its unique charm, and this means incremental densification on streets just like Salem. We moved here from a city which, while very dense, is experiencing its own housing crisis, Toronto, Ontario. That city has been plagued for years by setbacks, resistance, foot-dragging, and political whiplash concerning building new housing and transit. It is finally making progress on this front, and I want to see our new home of Medford avoid the decades of delays caused by this irrational resistance to change. I encourage Medford City Council to act boldly and say yes to more density today, not 20 years from now. Some things I want to highlight. One, Salem Street is perfectly positioned to add density to coincide with its improved transit corridor as part of the MBTA Better Bus Program and the changes to Routes 101 and 96. Reduced parking, greater density, and more variety in the mix of homes and businesses on the street is what we need. Two, the CD board's disappointing attempt to water down the proposal by removing the density node at Park Street is unnecessary. The MX2 zoning should be restored for this node. One visible reason is the unsightly open pit that has been present there for a long time. The more options available to develop that land, the better and the faster it will get done. The same goes for adjacent lots as they come up for redevelopment in the future. Artificially restricting density is not the way to address housing needs or the desire for a vibrant and walkable community. the community development board went too far in scaling back this proposal and the original proposal for mx2 zoning for the park street node should be approved three In parallel with the proposed rezoning, the Council must enable these rezoning initiatives to succeed by removing parking minimums citywide. A previous hometown of mine, Edmonton, Alberta, a notoriously car-dependent city, boldly removed not only all exclusionary single-family district zoning, but also all parking minimums several years ago to enable its goal of pushing infill development and avoiding further urban sprawl. These two measures have fundamentally changed the development patterns of the city for the better. This is exactly what we need to do in Medford. Parking minimums are an outdated policy measure that encourage unsustainable development and get in the way of building the housing we need. My thanks for the hard work you do to make Medford the best it can be. I look forward to more neighbors, more vibrancy, and more things that make Medford a great place to live. Enthusiastically, Nicholas Ullig, 62 Taylor Street, Medford, MA 02155. With that, I'm declaring this portion of the public hearing closed. I'm going to now recognize Council Vice President Collins, Vice President Collins, and then Councilor Leming and then Councilor Sanders.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins, Councilor Lemme.
[Zac Bears]: There's a motion to amend the proposal to revert the Salem and Park intersection from MX1 back to the MX2 in the original proposal by Councilor Leming. Is there a second on that amendment? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. We'll take a vote on that and then we'll take a vote on the proposal as amended, but I do want to go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Any further discussion by members of the Council? PB, Harmon Zuckerman, he or her. into the comprehensive plan and these iterations of our zoning recodification. This is the process. This is the public process. This is what representative government looks like. And we have a product before us that is the culmination of that process. So I just want to thank everybody again for their participation. We had over 70 people speak tonight. And that's in addition to dozens of public comments by email and all of the previous comments at Community Development Board hearings, City Council meetings, City Council Committee meetings. And that's just the part of this process we've just been doing for the past 13 months, never mind the two years of the comprehensive plan and the two years of zoning recodification we did before that. When we talk about how long have we been talking about this? A long time. We talked about how extensive the process was. The answer is unequivocally extensive, and that's how we got to where we are. There's a motion on the floor from Councilor Leming to amend. Essentially, I believe there's a motion to adopt the recommendations of the Community Development Board and approve the zoning ordinance except for the recommendation to shift from MX2 to MX1. So I think it's important to note the current proposal is still MX2. If we accepted the recommendations of the Community Development Board, it would go to MX1. So technically how we need to word this is that we're accepting all of the recommendations except for the recommendation to go to MX1 at Park Street and Salem Street. Now we could vote on the amendment. and then vote on the final motion. It looks like Council Member has a question.
[Zac Bears]: So it's not back and that's the important thing to recognize here. We would be essentially you're saying, we'll do it this way. You're voting we're voting not to adopt the recommendation to move from MX two to MX one at Park Street and Salem Street. And then we will vote yes to approve the zoning ordinance with all of the other recommendations from the Community Development Board. So we'll take two votes. A yes vote on the first will be to keep MX2 at Parkin Salem. And then a yes vote on the second vote will be to adopt all of the other recommendations except for the shift from MX2 to MX1 and to approve the zoning ordinance. Does that make sense to everybody? All right. So the first vote is to not adopt the recommendation of the Community Development Board to go from MX2 zoning to MX1 zoning at Salem Street and Park Street. So that's a yes vote, keeps MX2. I see Vice President Collins. On that motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative no negative the motion passes. On the motion by Councilor Leming to adopt the remainder of the Community Development Board's recommendations and approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. This is to adopt all of the other recommendations and approve. The second is Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, none in the negative, one absent. The motion passes. Nope, we're not done. Green score. So we still have to consider green score as part of this public hearing. I'm going to go to Council Vice President Collins to present on the green score element, and then I will reopen the public hearing on the green score. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I'm going to, the public hearing remains open. I'm opening it back up on the green score question. If you'd like to speak in favor or in opposition or in any other way about the green score proposal, you can come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. Name and address for the record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium. There's no hands on zoom. So we'll stay at the podium. Maybe the rest of the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I don't know, Vice President Collins, if you have anything on that. I know that this was based on the similar green score systems in Somerville and Cambridge, but I don't know if you have more.
[Zac Bears]: I do think the short answer is try to raise funds to do the nexus study, which will be around linkage, fee changes, inclusionary housing, and would also include the impact of this. So we're establishing the program. I think this is a best initial draft, but the nexus study piece is what's going to be needed to update inclusionary and linkage. And I could see it being applicable to this topic as well in terms of fine tuning. all of those programs and systems based on what the study says the market can bear in terms of costs.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, 30.
[Zac Bears]: This is if the landscape elements in table, if following conditions presented in table 5.1, it should say 5.3.
[Zac Bears]: As a bonus credit, got it.
[Zac Bears]: Line two, flooding to surrounding area and help. It says help. Got it. Thank you. That's it. No problem. Thank you. You definitely read it. Fantastic. Is there any other comment on this item as part of the public hearing?
[Zac Bears]: Kevin, are we transmitting? All right.
[Zac Bears]: For TV? For Medford Community Media?
[Zac Bears]: Kevin, Committee of the Whole on Channel 22? Okay. It did start late, started about 10 minutes late. This meeting also started about 10 minutes late. Can someone just go on YouTube and tell me if the file's there under the streaming? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you just we did check in on the stream stream has been up on YouTube for four and a half hours for this meeting, the committee, the whole is available if you go to city of Medford mass YouTube and you go to the live tab it's there. Our video tech and obviously if you're watching this you're you're experiencing this in real time. But our video tech, not just video tech, our MCM director, Kevin, says that it has been going out on the channels as well, and also a recording will be uploaded.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Kevin. And if you're still with us, the daily numbers were three, six. All right, any further comment on the public hearing? Council Vice President Collins. All right, then I'm going to close the public hearing seeing no hands and no one at the podium. The public hearing on this portion is closed for the green score. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve this zoning ordinance amendment with the recommendations of the Community Development Board by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. When you're ready, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears? Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to suspend the rules to paper 25042 out of order by Vice President Collins. Seconded by? seconded by councilor Leming all those in favor oppose motion passes 2, 5, 0, 4, 2, submitted by interim superintendent Suzanne Galusi, Metropolitan Public Schools, Massachusetts School Building Authority, accelerated repair statements of interest for roof and HVAC systems at the Roberts, Missittuck, and Brooks Elementary Schools. We have with us the assistant superintendent, Peter Cushing, who will still be ready for our school day tomorrow to present on this item. I also do have a memorandum, which I can attempt to read and summarize quickly, which is to say that the city of Medford and Medford Public Schools completed five school building projects between 2001 and 2003 phase one the Andrews and McGlynn complex phase two the Brooks, Mississippi and Roberts elementary schools. While these are the new schools they are 25 years old. We have moved forward on refurbishing the roof and HVAC systems at the phase one Andrews and McGlynn complex. And now the MSBA has opened a short window of the accelerated repair statement of interest period for our school districts to submit projects focused on things like deferred maintenance. And that is somewhere that we're looking at for the I'm going to turn it over to Assistant Superintendent Cushing at this time because he can speak to all of this better than I can and can probably summarize this memorandum better than I can.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Superintendent. We do have questions from a few council members. I just wanted to ask you one myself. Essentially, this is a program where the MSBA will pay for some portion, if we are accepted on our statement of interest, and if we are approved, the MSBA will pay for a portion of the costs to replace the roof and the HVAC at the elementary schools. And we are already undergoing that process for the K through eight McGlynn and Andrews middle school and had no idea that this process was potentially going to reopen at the time that we were moving forward on that, and that the conditions are worse at those schools than the elementary schools.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Callahan, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Collins, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I assume house doctor is a term of art, Superintendent Cushing.
[Zac Bears]: So these are people who are essentially on, potentially on retainer. There are three firms that do assessments of facility conditions and let us know their recommendation.
[Zac Bears]: Great. All right. Great. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of, we're gonna have to take three votes. but I'll go to Vice President. There's a motion to approve. We'll take three votes separately, one on each school by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Any further discussion? Any discussion on this by members of the public? Seeing none, anything further you'd like to say, Superintendent Cushing?
[Zac Bears]: Great. All right. On the motion of Council is our second and by Councilor Tseng to approve for the Brooks school. Mr. please call the roll Council Kelly. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, none of the negative, one absent. The motion passes. Is there a motion to approve for the Missituk Elementary School? So moved. On the motion by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng to approve for Missituk Elementary School. When you're ready, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's the affirmative. One absent, the motion passes. It's a motion to approve for Roberts Elementary School. A motion of Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Callahan to approve for the Roberts School. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative one absent the motion passes is approved. Thank you, Superintendent cushion. Thank you very much. Motions, orders, and resolutions. 24468, offered by Councilor Tseng. Draft city charter is amended by the committee of the whole. The draft city charter proposal is amended by the city council and committee of the whole after the governance committees can review processes attached. If approved by the council, the draft will be submitted to the mayor for her consideration for submission to the legislature. If approved by the legislature, the voters of the city of Medford will approve or deny the draft charter on the November 4th, 2025 municipal election ballot. This is our final meeting, at least of the process so far on the draft city charter. We have held several meetings in the governance committee as well as a meeting committee of the whole to discuss amendments to the city charter. Essentially, the main principles of the charter are what they were coming in, which is maintaining a strong mayor-weak council form of government with a slight shift of some power from the mayor to the council. This creates a charter that is a special act charter, not an adoption of different sections of state law, so essentially a charter that is a coherent document that is easily accessible and readable by the voters. This shifts from an all at large council to a hybrid of at large seats and local district seats. And it shifts some that essentially reduces the mayor's role on the school committee by not requiring the mayor to be the chair. But in general, it does shift some power away from the mayor in regards to the school committee. And with that, I will turn it over to Councilor Tseng, who is the chair of the Governance Committee, who has shepherded this through the process so far and can provide additional summary.
[Zac Bears]: Great, so there's a motion on the floor to approve this draft as amended by Councilor Tseng to strike section 45B1 and renumber the following two sections as one and two. All right, on that motion seconded by. Seconded by Vice President Collins, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. The motion is the whole thing. So right now, the motion is to adopt everything. Beautiful. Yes. So you're good. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chancellor Callahan. And I really encourage folks to read the blog post. I read it earlier, so I felt comfortable stepping out for my first break in five hours, only because I had read what I thought you were going to say, and I think you said most of it. And I just wanted to say that I think the point especially about the fact that if you're in a 51-49 race and 51% wins and 49% loses, half of people feel pretty bad about that and don't feel represented. And you know, given the special act process that we're in, we can't look at models that really do address that more seriously. Um, but we can have a balance of having this winner take all single member district seats and having, um, the at large seats. So thank you, councilor Leming. And then Councilor Tseng, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, I thought my microphone was on. Okay, I think I understand where we're at here with the definitions. We can move those two around.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Sagan. on the motion by Councilor Tseng to approve this draft as amended by Councilor Tseng and Councilor Leming and it's discussed. Is there any public comment? I have two, I'm gonna go to Gaston just because he has been standing up a while. Please raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium in person. Gaston, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Personally, I love the idea of putting our two least favorite colleagues at the little desks on the side. That's a complete joke. I mean, hey, I am all in favor of the original proposal. I think it basically is similar to what we have now, just the balances. It's still balanced. It's just balanced the other way a little bit. And you save, I think you have the same composition of both bodies and you don't have to maybe do a renovation in this room and maybe you don't have people speaking longer. I'm right there with you. I seriously think we might be the only two. the city who are 100% there. I hope I probably wrong on that, but certainly we're the only two have really spoken on it. I don't want to represent everyone else, but I'm pretty sure basically the reason it went up to the nine is that the study committee said a larger council would be more in line with what other cities have. If anyone else wants to speak to that, I'm yeah. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Cool. And I will say again, this process allows for a lot more frequent review. This charter, if it passes, there's a frequent review process included within it, and hopefully we could look at stuff like rank choice and other items, proportional, et cetera. Great, thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. You coming up? Oh, boy. David and Tress are working. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. On the motion of Councilor Tseng, as amended by Councilor Tseng and Councilor Leming and seconded by, who do we have as a second? I know but we might already have one. I think I just want to make sure it was Vice President Collins, sorry. Nope, it's Vice President Collins, nobody else. You're going in those chairs. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. The affirmative. One absent. The motion passes. Don't worry, we're not done to 5039 offered by President Bears resolution regarding the schedule of the annual budget process for fiscal year 2026, be it resolved by the Manfred City Council that the Council President request city councilors submit individual budget recommendations to the clerk by Thursday, March 13, that is this Thursday. That is this Thursday, March 13 2025. Nope, I gotta read the whole thing. For consideration in a committee of the whole meeting next Tuesday, March 18th at 6pm. Be it further resolved that based on the budget ordinance and discussions with the administration, the city council and city administration will follow the following budget schedule for fiscal year 26 city budget. By March 13th, submit individual budget recommendations for consideration. March 18th at 6 p.m. City council committee of the whole meeting to discuss council budget recommendations. March 19th, 2025 at 6 p.m. joint meeting of the city council and the school committee to receive a financial update and discuss the fiscal year 26 budget process. Tuesday, March 25th, 2025. That's our next regular meeting to submit a collective budget recommendation to the mayor. From April 15 to May 21, the City Council will hold preliminary budget meetings with department heads, and by Friday, May 31, 2025, the Mayor will submit a comprehensive budget proposal to the City Council. Be it further resolved that the draft schedule of preliminary budget meetings in the Committee of the Whole is as follows. Tuesday, April 15 at 6pm. Tuesday, April 29 at 6pm. Wednesday, April 30 at 7pm. Tuesday, May 13 at 6pm. Tuesday May 20 at 6pm and Wednesday May 21 at 6pm. On the motion of Councilor Leming to approve seconded by seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor. Opposed motion passes 24040, sir. Councilor motion to motion a table to the next. On the motion of Councilor Collins to table papers 25040 and 25041 to the next regular meeting, seconded by Councilor Sainz. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. Public participation. public participation. If there is anyone who'd like to speak on any matter that they want to speak to for three minutes, please provide.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And thank you for the Tufts Daily's work. Any further public comment? Seeing none, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Motion adjourned by Councilor Tseng seconded by Councilor Leming all those in favor.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee, the whole March 4th, 2025. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. This meeting is called to order. The action discussion item for tonight's meeting is 24-468 offered by Councilor Tseng, which is a resolution to discuss the draft city charter as amended by the governance committee, and I will go to Councilor Tseng to discuss the paper.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I heard a motion to accept the recommendations of the study committee with the technical amendments and refer to regular meeting. Seconded by Councilor Collins. Before we go there, I just wanted to, I have one question or two questions, one from the clerk regarding that 9-11 change. The clerk has said that the certificates of election or appointment do now come from the board of elections commissioners. So is that correct?
[Zac Bears]: There was one other item where we were, or two other items, sorry, where one, we were supposed to get some recommended language back from the Collins Center. One was for the school committee regarding the section 4-5, subsection B, subsection 1, the language upon the recommendation of the superintendent. We were supposed to get language from school committee council. Did we get that?
[Zac Bears]: And then the last one was section 8-1. We requested language from the Collins Center regarding the procedure for legal review of group petitions. I don't think we received any language on that. Okay. So we can follow up. The residency requirement for the boards and commissions. Okay, so if you could add those three items and make sure we get that language back from Count Collins Center, since they didn't get it to us yet, that would be great. And you'll send a list of all of these to the clerk? Great. All right, I will go to, who do I have here? I'll go to Councilor Collins, Councilor Scarpelli, and then we'll go from there, Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Collins. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Scarpelli and Councilor Callahan. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to clarify, the council was not involved in the formation of the charter.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. I knew I have three Councilors, but I just want to go and say, I think what you just said, Councilor Scarpelli, about the people contacting you is healthy. If again, I don't think the issue is that we're not listening people to people. I think the issue is that there are people we disagree with. You know, that's, that's what's at the core here, right? There are people who might agree with me on 95% of what I do. They don't agree with me on this. might disagree with you on 95% of what you do and say, but they agree with you on this. That's democracy. And I'm confident I've had conversations with residents who don't agree with me on this, residents who do agree with me on this, members of the Charter Study Committee who disagree with me on this, but don't think I'm a bad person for having a different opinion. And that's what I think healthy civic discourse is about. And I'm not saying, and I'm not saying you're saying I'm a person, but you know, and there are going to be people who for this is the most important thing. And they had an assumption that I felt a way that the platform didn't say. And then I don't think I said, never said there shall be eight and three. It was not written that way. There'll be people who this is their most important thing. And they don't believe that that's the interpretation and we're going to disagree. And we're going to have a conversation, I think, and we're going to get through it. And there's going to be people who aren't going to want to have that conversation and aren't going to be happy with me and aren't going to support me in the future. And there are people who are going to feel otherwise and I'm confident that the body of work that we do collectively and the individual work that we all do speaks to all of our roles and if the voters disagree. bless them and thank them because that is their right. And maybe you're right, maybe all six of us will be out of here because people don't like that we made this choice. And maybe all six of us might not even vote for it. And maybe we'll get thrown in the bag with everyone else, even if we did disagree on this or had different opinions on this. And I just want to note for the record, I didn't propose five and four. I came to the council I put out to the public a different proposal, my colleagues felt it should be adjusted, it was adjusted. And I don't think, and I really, the only piece of this that I really have a struggle with is that idea that We all knew what the process was. There would be a charter study committee that would put forward a proposal. This council would review and amend that proposal. The mayor would review and amend that proposal. The mayor got to make changes on her own, not in this meeting, not with public comment, not in front of everyone else. She'll get to make that choice after we send her what we send up as well in terms of whether she wants to support it or not. But again, this is the process this council was elected and is legally required to review the proposal. And this council went through an extensive process and made what I believe to be adjustments to 10% of the content of this charter. And I'm just going to close there I have more to say, but I'm going to go to the rest of my fellow Councilors first but it just really on those points, you know, It's not that we're not listening. It's that we don't agree with some people. Some people don't agree with me and they don't agree with some others of us for multitude of reasons. And I'm very confident that we can work through those disagreements. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Um, Councilor Kelly and and I will go to multi-member districts, proportional bodies, ranked choice voting. Some of these were things that I brought up in my conversations with the Charter Study Committee. If this had a ranked choice voting element to the Ward and District, to the eight and three model, I would feel much more confident about the upsides of that model and much less confident about the downsides. But from the conversations that we had with the CSC and the Collins Center, essentially they said, because we're going through the special act process, things that the legislature has not approved before, We should not include them because they're more likely to slow down the process of moving through the legislature or that the legislature is likely to not allow them at all. And my understanding is that the places that do have ranked choice voting did so through home rule processes, and not through special act processes so that's my understanding of the discussion I don't know if Councilor Tseng if you have a further summary.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so there's kind of a constriction on the models we're able to look at because of the Special Act process and the need for approval from the legislature, especially in a timely manner. I had Councilor Collins and Councilor Lembing. No, sorry, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Some might call that spin. What are Councilors saying?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Are there any of the councillors would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I'm going to share my viewpoint at this point. First thing I wanna go around us and is disagreeing can be hard and there'll be hard feelings and people won't be happy because someone disagreed with them on something that they didn't expect them to disagree with them on. And we're gonna work through that. I wanna bring us back to in general, and this is my five bullet points. If we take the sum total of the survey and what the Charter Study Committee brought us for public process, and to be honest, my own conversations over the last five years, in general, this proposal reflects a consensus of the people. I think both the Charter Study Committee proposal and the amended proposal. It's to keep a mayor council form of government, no city manager, we're not doing that. To have a balance of powers where the council is slightly stronger and the mayor is slightly less stronger, but to maintain a strong mayor weak council system, which both do. To have hybrid representation for the council and the school committee, meaning some at large and some localized. to create a clear document that is modern and that residents can access and read when they wanna understand what the foundational document of our community is. And quite frankly, that there would be less mayoral involvement in the school committee. That seems pretty clear as well, both from my conversations and the discussion we've had and from the Charter Study Committee's materials and report, which I have read the whole thing a couple of times. So that's what the people seem to want. Now, I think both of these proposals reflect that. On the specifics, I also wanna just talk about the process really quickly that when we talk about this council's involvement, I think in addition to whatever anyone else wants to bring up, this is also the most diverse council with the most women, the youngest, with the first person of color under this form of government, and I believe under the last form of government. And I think that should be taken into account as well. I believe Councilor Tseng is the first person of color to vote in this process so far, from Sim to Stern. I think that should be accounted for as well. When we talk about the proposal of what does hybrid representation look like on both bodies. Again, I came in with a different thought. I thought, wow, I really like what the charter study committee proposed for the school committee. I think it works for the council. Let's do it. I was summarily told from all sides that I was wrong. And we have a different proposal in front of us, which is five at-large Councilors and four district Councilors. Am I unhappy that what I thought was a good idea was not moved ahead? I might be. But the reason I think the principle around how I feel about the localized and at-large representation and hybrid representation on the council is one of balance. There are costs and benefits to every decision. And I believe that this model minimizes the costs. of more localized representation and maximizes the benefits. The core benefit we've heard is this question of equity. And I think Councilor Tseng really spoke to maximizing that this can maximize that benefit. There are real costs when we talk about the localized representation. I also have talked to councillors in many communities, district and ward, both hybrid communities. And they do talk about some of the downsides, seats that go with an incumbent for 10, 20, 30 years, almost always unchallenged. That happens. They talk about maybe it's not formally in the charter that a ward Councilor gets a power, but there's informal power that comes through process and relationship with the mayor where a ward Councilor or a localized Councilor in any model district or ward ends up having significantly more say in something that's going on in their district or ward than the other members of the council. And maybe something never even gets to the other Councilors. There is no consideration by everybody. And that's what has happened in some communities. People have talked to me about that. As I noted, I think because we're going through the special act process, there are a lot of options that could have mitigated these costs. like a ranked choice model, or looking at multi-member districts, or looking at proportional representation. Councilor Tseng cited social science research, best practices, and I won't reiterate it, but just to say again, that looking at those other ways of voting, like a ranked choice model, like multi-member districts. Those are ways to solve the costs that are associated with localized representation and preserve the benefits. They're not tools available to us because of the process that we're going through. I'm just gonna finish and remind everyone and say that by and large, from every conversation that I've had and from what the Charter Study Committee report said, people want a charter that keeps the mayor council form of government. that slightly strengthens the council but maintains a strong mayor weak council form of government. That is a clear document that is modern and easy for people to access and understand the foundation of our community's governance. That there is less mayoral involvement in the school committee and that there's hybrid representation for both the council and the school committee. And I am confidently happy to say that this proposal, if the amendment voted by Councilor Tseng is, or proposed by Councilor Tseng has moved to the regular meeting, and if the council at its regular meeting refers us to the mayor, that it fulfills those principles. We may disagree on specifics. Anyone who disagrees with me, Call me, email me. I know some folks have tried to get in touch today. I've had a personal issue today. And I apologize, I couldn't respond to people today. I will try to as we move forward, as I move through this myself. I've talked to a lot of people about this. Anywho, but there has been some today, a few, who've contacted me today. And I'm just gonna say at the end of this that I feel that sometimes doing the right thing, what we believe to be the right thing is hard. Sometimes it's not what our friends want or what the people who are most active want or what our colleagues want, but sometimes we still have to do it. I'm confident that as amended and referred out, this charter will pass. with the voters because I don't think the voters are going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I really don't. And quite frankly, I hope as I will, and as I think many others will, that even though we didn't all get everything that we wanted to see in this charter, those of us who believe in changing this charter will work together to get this done and not put it into a political process and you say it gives ammunition to whomever or whatever. I really hope that we can all work together and do that because I think the voters know that this reflects what they've said they'd like to see from a charter change. And I think we can all work together to fulfill that and have a new charter in effect in 2027 for the 2027 elections. So that's what I'll be doing. That's where I stand. And to those who are frustrated or angry or confused or feel that I don't have not, that this wasn't the way that I would approach this. I'm happy to talk to you and I think we can work through it. Thank you. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you. Thank you, Councilor Leming. Do any further comments by members of the council? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, could you read, read, sorry, Councilor Lazzaro. We do have a motion on the floor. I was gonna have the clerk read it, but this is, I'll go to you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we could do that. We could also if this is a motion to amend Councilor Sagan's motion.
[Zac Bears]: If he doesn't want it, we could vote on the proposal to amend the motion, whichever one you prefer. So are you essentially proposing to have a vote on the representation?
[Zac Bears]: I'm trying to say that we could, there's two ways we could do this. We could sever out the compensation or Councilor Zizaro could vote to try to amend this, could say, I would like to amend this to eight words and three at large, and we could vote on that amendment. Okay, so there's a motion from Councilor Lazzaro to sever the vote on adopting the Governance Committee's recommendation on the composition of the Council with a second from Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Is that a yes or? You oppose? Okay. So there's a vote to sever. Yeah, so council is our move to sever the vote to adopt the governance committee's recommendation regarding council composition. And I'm just gonna call a roll on that. Seconded by Councilor Leming, yes. So this means we would vote on all of the other recommendations and then, or vote on the composition and then all the other ones, there'd be two separate votes. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yeah, this is on the motion to sever. So if you vote yes, you vote to sever.
[Zac Bears]: This is the vote to sever. So all this means is that we would have two separate votes.
[Zac Bears]: On the day of my daughter's wedding. Come to me. Yes. So that means that the motion is severed. And we will have two votes. So just in case anyone wondered, I'm voting for us to have a special specific vote on this specific item. Just so in case people say later, I'm a dictator, I'm not. I'm gonna wait for the clerk. All right, motion severed. We'll start with the council composition. So there's a motion. We're gonna do it, but I'm gonna just... We will have public participation on the motion. Now that the motion is severed, I wanna reread. So it's two motions now. So I wanna make sure that we know what we're talking about. So the first motion is the motion to adopt the governance committee's recommendation on the council composition, which is a five at large for district. A vote yes is a vote to say yes to five at large and four district. A vote no is to say no to five at large and four district. That is what we're talking about now. Then we will talk about all the other amendments. Is there any further discussion by members of the council on this motion? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation. This is about council composition only, and then we will have comment on the other items. Please raise your hands on Zoom or come to the podium in person. Name and address for the record. One second here. And you will have three minutes and we'll go to you at the podium. Name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Zoom, Glenn Dixon. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes and I am going to try to hold closer to the three minutes going forward.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. The address record you have, three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Ron, could you let us know when those interviews happened?
[Zac Bears]: And we don't have it that way. We can't give people our time. In public participation? No, we can't. So I do have two members of the council who would like to comment, but I did want to note too, and Anna may have more information on this. Excuse me, if we could take conversations outside, if we're going to have them. Thank you. Thank you. If you want to take it outside and then come back in after you've discussed it, that's welcome. Thank you. So, first I want to say to Zach on zoom if you could please add a last name last time I unmuted someone who did not have a last name I regretted it please add your last name to your name on zoom to. Melvin McDonald's question about other cities that have districts in addition to Boston and Worcester Lowell has districts, Lawrence has districts, Methuen has districts, Amesbury has districts, these are all on the city council I'm reading their websites. The town acting as the city of barn city acting as a town of Barnesville has districts, the city acting as the town of Randolph has districts, the city acting as the town of Amherst has districts and Framingham, Massachusetts also has districts so those are all cities who have districts that are a combination of precincts or wards. Yes, I'd have to do a little bit more research. Yes. Methuen right here it's multiple precincts combined into districts. That's the city of Methuen. Yeah. The town of Amherst also has that and that's a town but it's a city government form act labeled as a town. So I just wanted to put that out there. I'm going to go to Councilor Leming and then Councilor Tseng. Councilor Leming. I'd like to keep it brief so we can move into more public comment. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: OK. Oh, sorry. We can, we'll hold. If we're going to have private discussions, can we please take them out of the room? Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Oh, sorry. Last person who spoke was wrong. So we'll go back to zoom. Name and address for the record on Zoom. We'll go to Zach on Zoom. You have three minutes. And thank you for mentioning your name.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I believe I was the one who said throw the baby out with the bathwater. I meant the voters in November. I'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to Zoom. I have Alyssa on Zoom. You'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: It's just-
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. We'll go back to the podium, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes. Give me one second here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Joliot. And just to the point about the speed, I don't personally entirely disagree with you, but the reason that we... are on this timeline, as we've been told by the Collins Center, that if we don't submit it to the legislature by the end of March, it's unlikely that they will consider it in time to be placed on the November 2027 ballot. And that has been raised as a consideration by the Collins Center and, sorry, November 2025, thank you, ballot and Well, that's as it was written as such that if you read the full thing, it's written as an act of the legislature. And it says to be placed on November 4th, 2025 ballot that came from the study committee and the legislature and the call-in center said to keep that timeline, you really should get it to the legislature by the end of March. I have my own personal views about maybe where we could go back and do more on this, but that seems to have been what people, the timeline people have wanted.
[Zac Bears]: You also had demographic data. Do you have that available? I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I will go back to Councilors saying we did approach Councilors saying I approached the mayor about trying to Start this process of the council element of this process earlier last summer last fall, and we decided to wait for the study committee to finish its process. And that that was the decision we made. Councilor Tseng Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to Zoom. We'll go to Sheila. Sheila, name and address for the record, please, and we'll have three minutes. Sheila, I'm gonna ask you to unmute. Oh, I saw you for a second. I'm gonna send the request again, Sheila. Oh, sorry, here you go. Sheila, I'm gonna request that you unmute one more time. Sorry, I think I accidentally muted you on the last one. There you go, you're unmuted. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: We can hear you, and I'm gonna start the timer when you say your name and your address.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Ron, there are three more people who haven't spoken yet and then I'll come back to you. Go to Zoom, I have a D Silva. D, I'm gonna unmute you and then I will start the timer after you give your name and address. D Silva. All right, I'll go then to Paul Geraghty. Paul, I'm going to unmute you. Please give your name and address, and then I'll start the timer for three minutes. Paul.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Paul. All right, I'm seeing D Silva's hand again. I will go back to you. D Silva, I'm requesting that you unmute. Are you seeing the button come up for you to unmute? I've pressed it again, requesting the unmute. All right, I will go to then Daniel Mazinski. Daniel, you'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will go to Marie Izzo. Marie, I'm going to request to unmute, and then I'll start the timer when you give your name and address. Marie.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Marie. I'll go to Mike on Zoom. Mike, I'm gonna unmute you. Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mike. I will go back to the podium, run another three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I think he said it was without context and didn't include other elements of what he said.
[Zac Bears]: I don't want to speak to things I can't characterize. I'll come back when he's here. Can you do that?
[Zac Bears]: No, I think that he said, I don't think we should characterize his words.
[Zac Bears]: I think he actually he did state that what you had said was correct, but not out of context. But there were other statements that he made that provided context. I get it. But I just think I don't think he was saying you were lying.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng has said that he said accurate, but there were other comments.
[Zac Bears]: We've gone over about a minute now. You can come up again. But I just want to respect.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to respect hearing from all. I'm done.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Ron. I'm going to go try D Silva one more time, D on Zoom. I'm going to unmute you. Name and address for the record, please. I'm going to take people who haven't spoken first.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to take people who haven't spoken first, but I'm trying to go to D Silva on Zoom right now, D. They've disappeared again. So I will go back to the podium.
[Zac Bears]: We'll take Ron after we've heard from people who haven't had a chance to speak yet. Just think he needs to be heard. That's all we'll hear from him. Thank you. I just want to hear from everyone. And equally. Thank you. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm seeing no hands on zoom, I will go back to the podium. Is there anyone who'd like to speak? Mr. South, would you like to speak? You haven't spoken yet, so I'll take you first. Name and address for the record, you have three minutes and then I'll go back to you, Chair McDowell.
[Zac Bears]: a bunch of a bunch of what's that just if you could address the other Councilors through my I am. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I do. I appreciate you bringing up the volunteer piece of this. We haven't said that enough. And Chairman McDonald can certainly correct me. I believe you were all volunteer. I'm not sure what the call center had a grant or something or if they did this out of for free and also I believe you can correct me I don't think any city budget was allocated to the review study committee. either. You can correct me.
[Zac Bears]: And did you have any funds allocated for your outreach?
[Zac Bears]: OK.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to you again for another three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I reviewed that, you were right, I was wrong, I apologize for making that statement.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And just to, I did further, Quick research on it as well. I appreciate you doing that. The Amesbury, they combine precincts. Framingham also combines precincts and they recently adopted a new charter moving from town to city. So it does seem more common in the town context. I just wanted to feel free. No, I'm saying I pull back some of what I said earlier and thank you for bringing up the piece. Thank you. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: And there are a lot of- They specifically stated they weren't providing legal advice, nor were they providing a recommendation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, Councilor Callahan did put up a document I think at the January 22nd Governance Committee meeting. There's a copy of the minutes in the reports, but the recording is available comparing many communities in Massachusetts, the average size of the various districts, wards or precincts that compose their local representation in their hybrid models. I will go to Councilor Scarpelli, seeing no other public comment, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And I think you described it well. I think everyone here has had the interview they had listed or it's been mentioned, yours wasn't, but it was mentioned that your position had changed from that interview. There were the positions then, there's the positions now, people have vocalized them and we are where we are. So I will go to Councilor Leming, then Councilor Collins. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Their charter's 1938 and it's not ranked choice, it's way weirder than that, but we'll digress, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you. Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Collins and Councilor Tseng. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: We have Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Just to clarify, there are things that call themselves towns but operate as cities, and I'm betting that database includes them, but it might not. So just something to remember.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, good.
[Zac Bears]: There are some things that call themselves towns, but they operate under a city structure with a council and a mayor or a manager rather than a town meeting.
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate that because that's the last thing I was hopefully the last thing to say. And where I was going with it is, you know, the fundamental question that we're disputing and debating and we have now for two very long meetings on this topic is how big should the local districts be. And we are confined by the structure that we have right, you can make the argument that eight wards leaves out eight precincts, so we should have 16 precinct Councilors. I don't think anyone would say that because we shouldn't have a 30-person council like Newton. Nobody wants that, but it's the same argument. And I think we're trapped by the fact that we don't have six wards with three precincts each. If we had six wards with three precincts each, I think everyone here would say, let's do six ward Councilors, five at-large Councilors. You have a majority ward. It's pretty evenly balanced. Let's go for it. I would. That's what Weymouth has. We don't want to draw districts, we don't want to draw six districts, which might be in between these four districts in the eight ward size, because the city, you know, the State House hasn't seen that quite. Then we don't want to have the model where we're drawing districts, right? I mean, there's a million different reasons, many of them stemming from the Special Act process and the legislature, why we are where we are. But again, that is my concern. How small is too small? I think eight is too small. That's based on the additional research I've done over the past five years, and especially over the last year and six months. It seems there's an assertion that four is too big, but there's no way to split up 16 precincts six ways. Math doesn't work. So again, we are constrained by the process. And we have had a discussion about the process extensively saying as to why we're not exploring ranked choice voting, why we're not exploring proportional, why we're not exploring multi-member districts, why we're not exploring council authority for the budget, why we're not exploring council authority on other matters. There's a whole bunch of things that we've just said we're not gonna do because the legislature is probably gonna delay or deny. And again, quite frankly, we have here a model that is used in another part of the charter recommended by the study committee, a district model. If it was gonna be muster for the school committee, we felt it seems that it would meet muster for the council on a legal basis only. And we are where we are. I wish we had a different number of awards. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: My view, I didn't look at a full database. I looked at specific cities. It's very similarly that our wards tend to, on average, the average population of our wards is smaller than wards in most of the places that have this model. I will go back. We have one hand on Zoom. Is there anyone else in the chamber who'd like to speak? I'm gonna go to the hand on Zoom. It's a new person, and then I'll come back to the podium. Muneer Germanis, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I have Eileen Lerner on Zoom. Eileen, I'm going to try to unmute you. And you'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Eileen. No more hands on Zoom. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm not 100% sure if it already has been. If the mayor involved the KP Law team at some point, they are currently serving as the acting city solicitor. Certainly, sorry, if you'd like to respond.
[Zac Bears]: That's all. Certainly. No, I 100% support this being reviewed by council. And in addition to council for the city, we have been told that will be reviewed by house and Senate council if it is submitted to the legislature. So there'd be at least two legal review processes. There may have already been another one, which is just, I just wanted to put that out there. I don't know if the mayor already did that once. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: That's attorney Greenspan. He works for the Metro Public Schools. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. I see no further public comment in the chamber, if I'm correct. Len? No? And I don't see any hands on Zoom. So that brings us back to the motion. The motion on the floor is It's been a while here. Yeah, we just want to read it out loud.
[Zac Bears]: I'm saying that to Justin. It'll be right above that. Tomorrow. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Right above that there's a, oh, sorry. There you go. So there was a motion to sever and that was to vote on the motion to adopt the governance committee recommendations regarding the composition of the council. And just a reminder, a yes vote would have five at-large members and four district members. A no vote would revert to the initial recommendation of the study committee of eight ward members and three at-large members. I'm guessing we want a roll call. Anyone want to request one? Yes. A yes is for five at-large, four district. A no would not adopt the recommendation and would revert the language back to the initial proposal of eight ward and three at-large. Is there a request for roll? Roll requested by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: It's a motion by Councilor Lazzaro. I guess seconded by Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, five in the affirmative, two in the negative, the motion is adopted. Next order of business is the motion to refer to the council for the next regular meeting agenda. The draft as amended by the Governance Committee with the technical amendments he outlined and with the amendment proposed by Councilor Scarpelli to include a residency requirement for multi-member bodies. And there's a second on that motion from Vice President Collins. Would members of the council like the technical amendments read back? Is there a request to read back the technical amendments? We will include them in the record of the committee report and they will be included in the red line draft that appears before the council at regular meetings. On that motion, is there any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation. Public participation, you will provide your name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes. If there's any public participation in the room, please approach the podium. There is one hand on Zoom. Eunice, I think you're Eunice Brown, and I hope so. So it's not a Zoom bomber. Eunice, I'll ask you to unmute, and you'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, we'll hear your second question.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I think it's a fair question. I would say that we did, I believe, accept all the edits that the mayor made. Whether she intends to do the same or not, that's up to her. Yeah, certainly if there is a significant further negotiation, there would be likely at least a need for another vote of the council at a regular meeting, probably another committee meeting. And that would probably move us past the March deadline.
[Zac Bears]: Certainly if the mayor were to return a draft to us two days after we sent it, we would try to schedule a committee or a special meeting to get something back on for the 25th that she could send out. But really that is up to her, how quickly she returns a response to us. And then if changes are needed, how quickly we can work through the differences. To your first question regarding the public comment. We have been considering the charter as submitted the language was sent to Councilor Tseng and was then sent. This is the public comment language that you mentioned is sent a chair saying. who through the clerk submitted it to the full council. And it was not submitted as part of the charter as drafted. And no Councilor raised an amendment to include it at any of our meetings. So it's not included.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, on the motion of Councilor Tseng, as seconded by Vice President Collins, to refer this to the Council for the next agenda, the draft as amended by the Governance Committee with the technical amendments outlined by Councilor Tseng, and with the amendment proposed by Councilor Scarpelli to include a residency requirement for multi-member bodies. Further comment, name and address, just give me.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: So we just have to make sure there will be language that goes into the draft for next week that has a residency requirement. If it's whatever its sources, it will be included. Right, right.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just going to throw out that I guarantee you the legislature would say that's an opening to things that they don't want to do around I don't know if anyone else has an opinion on that, but that's my read of the legislature.
[Zac Bears]: In principle, I completely agree with you, but the non-citizen, the under 18, 16 plus voting legislature has been pretty cool to both of those. And I think they'd see anything in a charter that allows participation in the electoral process from non-registered voters would probably raise a flag for them. But that's just my opinion. Any other thoughts on that?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Eunice, is that an old hand or a new hand? I'll just ask you to unmute in case it's new.
[Zac Bears]: All right, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: All right, on the motion by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. This is the motion, sorry, I already read it. I already read this back once. This is the motion to refer to the council for the next agenda. I read it once, but I'll read it again. Councilor Tseng moved to refer to the council for the next agenda, the draft as amended by the governance committee with the technical amendments he outlined, and also with the amendment proposed by Councilor Scarpelli to include a residency requirement for multi-member bodies, seconded by Vice President Collins. Thank you. All right, on that motion, Mr. Clerk, please call it.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. Is there any further discussion or business for tonight? I think we've disposed of the items on the agenda. On the motion to adjourn by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And sorry if this isn't the next section, but if you guys talk a little bit about the protection for single families in the UR1 and UR2 districts.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Collins. And I think just to add to that point, specifically, we're going to be talking commercial framework, Medford Square, West Medford Square, Wellington, Glenwood, and we're especially going to be talking about the Tufts Institutional District and Boston Ave and Main Street. And those are, I think I did those out of order, but those are the four remaining topics.
[Zac Bears]: just to clarify for me as well. The next meeting of this committee, we're going to be talking about the commercial framework. We're doing the commercial framework. We're going to kick off the commercial framework at the next meeting. All right. Yes, that's right. So we should be moving together. Great. Okay. I'll make that motion and then we should hear from everybody.
[Zac Bears]: I'll make a motion to refer this to the regular meeting. Um, but we should certainly do public participation before we take any votes.
[Zac Bears]: And one, one other question. Sorry. Um, you guys are going to look at the comments from the building commissioner.
[Zac Bears]: There is no further proposed public Q&A on the Salem Street. The Salem Street public Q&A was dated as February 10th, because that's when we had it at the Roberts School. I think what Vice President Collins is describing is that essentially these planning and permitting committee meetings are to develop a draft That draft is then referred to the Community Development Board, which is when the official public hearing process required by state law for zoning occurs. And you have a public hearing in the Community Development Board and then a public hearing of the council. We are creating this public Q&A meeting in addition to, it's outside of the legal process, but it occurs between the referral of this to the initial referral of a proposal drafted by the Planning and Permitting Committee to the Community Development Board and the first hearing of the Community Development Board. So we've already had the Q&A for Salem Street. There's no further Q&As planned. The next Q&As are planned for a March Q&A regarding the residential proposals we're discussing tonight, and an April Q&A for at least some of the commercial proposals we intend to start discussing next meeting.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to president bears first. I mean, I think that gets to the crux of the, of the whole zoning project really. Um, and I think the vision based on the comprehensive plan is that every neighborhood would see some incremental increase in its density.
[Zac Bears]: Sure.
[Zac Bears]: I think it would only be new. So if you were to, I think the answer to the question is no, but it's probably the place where that's most happening because of the uniqueness of the SF district in that neighborhood, like surrounding that SF district is mostly non-SF districts, where in most other parts of the city with existing SF districts, They're surrounded by SF districts, if that makes sense. And also because of the transit. So those are, it's probably the place where the impact is happening the most, but I wouldn't say it's the only place where you have a single family allowed by right now where it wouldn't be allowed by right in the future. But when you made a point about the useful life of the existing structure. if you had a 120-year-old single family and you are, if this passed as is, with a UR1 and you had 120-year-old single family that was nearing its end of its useful life and needed reconstruction, because it's an existing nonconforming use, you could still rebuild the single family on that lot because of how the zoning's written. So if someone has a single family and they say, I can't renovate this, I need a new single family, they could still do that. It would be if someone had an empty lot, or wanted to convert a two family to a single family, or basically wanted to build a new single family where one didn't already exist. That would be the only piece that wouldn't be allowed. If you could just speak into the microphone. Sorry, it's okay. It's a pain in the butt.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: And I think that's one of the hard parts about zoning. And when you talk about the vision, it is a, it's a vision for 10 to 20 years and it's about doing something or even 30 to, you know, 10 to 40 years really. And the comprehensive plan that we put together talks about a 30 year kind of timeline. And by we, I mean literally a ton of people worked on that.
[Zac Bears]: So that's allowed right now. There are state laws governing condo conversion. And then KITT has been working on a condo conversion ordinance specifically for Medford.
[Zac Bears]: But I just want to talk more about the vision because I think it's important and I think you know there's probably disagreement on it I'm not saying we disagree but generally I don't think we've had a lot of conversations lately about what it means for everyone to agree on something and that's very rare. But I think in general, the vision is there's an incremental increase in density across the city, across all of the city's zoning districts. But I do think that the neighborhood that we're talking about, not necessarily all of Hillside, but this section that is close to the train and is the single family district right now is probably seeing more an increase of like two increments more than, and then a lot of places might only be seeing one increment more. And I think, you know, just to be direct to the question, I think, yeah, I think in 10 to 20 years, you'd probably see more two and three families where there are single families right now in that neighborhood. And I think a lot of that is, you know, yes, there is the demand for, you know, families to live in single family homes. It's a high demand neighborhood. And then the question is, who does that demand get to benefit, right? If we leave the zoning as it is, you end up with single family homes that are worth $1.2, $1.4, $1.6, $1.8 million. I wish.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I'm saying in that 10 to 20 year time frame, it wouldn't surprise me if that was the value with the walkability to the Green Line. and the neighborhood.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I think the question I'm saying is, how do you distribute that so that maybe, yes, that structure is still going to be worth that, but can you have more people living there so that the demand is that people are going to want to live there? Do you want it to only be accessible to a family that can afford a $2 million single family? Or do you want it to be accessible to maybe two families who want to live in $1 million condos or a two family apartment, you know, and that's where I think the density piece comes in is you're saying that more, yes, more people can live on a single lot, but it also means that people, you don't have to have as ridiculously high of an income to live in the neighborhood. And I think it's a balance.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: But your per unit costs would be lower.
[Zac Bears]: Right, I think the question is the square foot versus the per unit.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Yeah, I think it's a great debate.
[Zac Bears]: I would guess that. Yeah. No, it was a good discussion. I appreciate it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, if I could just You know, I think this is basically the discussion we're having, right? We're seeing land values increase generally already. The value of land, the value of structures in the community has increased significantly. It drives that and the demand generally again for people wanting to live close to Boston drives rent increases, it drives increase in land value and You know, we're having this discussion I don't think anyone's disputing that. What is an up zoning is going to increase the land value per square foot of these lots right that's going to happen. And I think the question is, on a per unit basis and again you know we talked a lot at a previous meeting I'd like to see a lot of, you know, federal investment, state investment, non-market solutions to lower the price of housing, because I think housing is about housing people, not just as serving as a commodity. And I think what we've seen is that it's because it's been commodified, we end up in this conflict where, you know, again, moving on from that, we have the land values are going up. allowing someone to build more on a lot is going to increase the land values more. And then the question is, what you allow them to build, does it actually potentially allow you to house more people there and reduce the per unit cost of housing people? And I think that's the kind of crux where we're looking at this specific project, which is just about the rules that we're setting for the market in Medford. I think that intersects in a lot of different ways with policies that we should be implementing that aren't about just letting the market do it at once. And I think one of the reasons that we got here is that the city's existing zoning is exclusionary zoning. It's dated after the construction of a lot of these neighborhoods. So the reason that a single family in that neighborhood is nonconforming is because somebody said, 120 years ago, people were like, we want to build these houses here on this lot size, this shape. And we don't even really have to ask anybody what we want to do. And then 50 or 60 years after that, people wrote a law that said, actually, we don't want to let them do that anymore. And we'd have to go look back at the intent of that. But a lot of that was because communities didn't want to let more people live here, or certain kinds of people live here, or shape neighborhoods in certain ways. And I think one of the intents of what we're trying to do is to say, at the very least, the zoning should at least look like what the neighborhoods looked like when they were built. And that because of the need for housing in our community, they should allow somewhat more housing in those neighborhoods. And I don't think I think everyone's completely right that's going to look at that will look like change neighborhoods will change. Whether they change incredibly fast or incredibly slow is going to be up to the people the private owners of those properties, because we're setting essentially the rules for the private market agnostic of whoever those private actors are. We can't control who buys land. We can't control who develops land. All we can say is here's what we allow you to build on this land through the different processes that the state law allows. And I think talking about the neighborhood around the you know, Brookings Street and George Street and the Medford-Tufts Station, that's one place. It's the only single-family district south of the river. It's the only single-family district in such close proximity to a rapid transit line. And that's why I think the change and the pace of change, both the scope of change and the pace of change, will probably seem bigger than in some other parts of the city, but I don't think any part of the city will see no change. And I think that's a reality that we're facing because people want to live in cities and more people want to live here than we have the ability to house here. And if we do nothing, then we will continue to limit who can live here based on class and their cost of housing or their luck to have purchased a house at a certain time in the past rather than a time in the future. And I think those are our values. Sometimes those conversations will put our different values in conflict and we'll have to come up with what we think is an approach that sits with reality, but also maybe doesn't satisfy everything that we would like to see. I'll also say that I think we're taking a thoughtful approach. And for me personally, I'm on the line here in this neighborhood around the NR3 versus the UR1 designation. I've gone back and forth. And I've heard that from folks. And similarly, I think there's a bunch of geographic And there's certain sets of conditions that, to me, put certain neighborhoods on this borderline of, for certain values and reasons, you could go this way. For certain values and reasons, you could go this way. And it's a close call. And so I got an email from Laurel today about the NR3 versus the R1. I'm hearing what you're saying about it. Yeah, and I think that is one of the harder This is one of the places where, because of the unique conditions, some of your values are going to say this should go the UR1 just because it has such high demand and access. And some of you say you should go the NR3 because it's probably the district that's seeing the greatest change because it's a unique location for a single family district in the city right now. So that was a long and rambling thought, but I hope it at least goes to show that we're thinking and talking about these different issues. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[Zac Bears]: Just to, and I don't wanna, I don't wanna, Contrary to anything you said, but generally the events calendar is the last is the final place where the meetings dates and times and links go up because those are created by the city communications department after the clerk's office at Vice President Collins and I published the agendas. So the events calendars usually only updated meeting. Um you know, the Friday before those meetings if you go to the City Council page on the website, there's a link to the January to June 2025 City Council meeting schedule. Um and the meetings of this committee for March, April, May and June are all on there right now. Um for March and April, it's March I think March 26 or April 9 is probably when we will talk about those specifics, but I defer to the Chair on exactly the date for the Boston Ave. Tufts Main Street.
[Zac Bears]: And I would just add again, like if folks are interested in this process through the end of June, our meetings are on the website, March 12th, March 26th, April 9th, April 30th, May 14th, May 28th, June 11th and June 25th. And that's these meetings where we develop the proposals before they get referred into the zoning process and the public hearings and the state law, the whole state law process. Thank you for your efforts.
[Zac Bears]: I won't say any impediment, and knowing your definition of impediment, I'm just, I'm trying to be a little lighthearted, but We read the, if you want to, we read the non-conforming, we reviewed the non-conforming use and structure section of the ordinance. And right now it allows you to build up to a hundred percent. So you could have, you have a 1300 square foot single family, and let's say a UR1 passes, it becomes a non-conforming use on that lot. You could build up to a 2600. square foot, single family, I think you have to do within two years but Alicia probably has that right in front of her. Right.
[Zac Bears]: Budweiser.
[Zac Bears]: I don't even know how to begin to respond to the comment.
[Zac Bears]: It's in the city's reserve funds.
[Zac Bears]: It's so it can be accessed during the time between when the fiscal year ends and when free cash is certified each year. Otherwise, the money is not accessible for use. It's state.
[Zac Bears]: Crushing it. OK. Thank you for your comments. I can comment on a couple pieces of that. On the car barn question, I think you can see from the zoning that we are really hoping that we could see that neighborhood knit back together with the disruptive MBTA site, hopefully paired with the target site in the large parking lot. The idea for Haines Square is that we no longer have bus storage, but and essentially empty parking lots and bus storage, but a vibrant mixed-use district on Salem Street and on the Fellsway, where we have the T property now. But we haven't, as Alicia noted, A, we can't control the MBTA from buying anything. If they bought the Budweiser location and plan to put something there, that's their choice to do that. The city doesn't control who buys and sells property, nor do we control what the state agencies do, much to our chagrin, I would add. That's really, I think, all I have there. Just on this affordability question, trying to collect my thoughts. Um, I think something that we talk about, like we're, and it's happened multiple times on the different policies that we've tried to look at here, whether we're talking about a conversation about condo conversion or rent stabilization or rental registry or transfer fee or zoning, those are all individual potential pieces of a comprehensive solution to a regional housing crisis. And there are also pieces of the solution that are within the scope of what the city can do. What we're seeing regionally is high demand for housing, stagnant supply due to the financialization and commodification of land and housing, due to the high cost of construction, doing to regulatory limits on supply and zoning, and what you end up seeing is increasing prices. And in terms of a comprehensive solution, there are basically three options. You can increase supply. One is by reducing those regulatory barriers to construction by allowing people to build larger structures and more housing units than they were before, which is generally done through zoning. You can have public funding for the construction of housing, generally that's income restricted and affordable housing. And so that's your increased supply bucket. I think we all know the city of Medford does not have large amounts of money to build housing, nor are we allowed to borrow money using municipal bonds to build housing. So in that increasing supply bucket, basically the only tool we have is to change the zoning and the rules for private land. So that's increased supply, that's one solution. The second solution is you can subsidize costs. So you could increase rental assistance. That's to try to just reduce the price to the end user. We've generally seen that that's not an effective solution. It's basically a pass through to property owners. There's been some ways that this has worked a little bit better, like inclusionary zoning, which is like getting a private subsidy. for housing. Of course, there are federal programs around this. And then the third thing you can do is you can control, literally do price controls. So you can have rent control, rent stabilization, or you can limit profiteering, right? Those are essentially your three solutions to the problem. And the problem is that the price of housing is too high. Now, what's actually within our power to do in that entire bucket? We don't have the state authority to do rent stabilization. You don't have the state authority to do the transfer fee, which is a price control in some ways, or at least it de-incentivizes profiteering. And it's in some ways a private subsidy, because if someone wants to, if you instituted a transfer fee on a flip or flipped houses, for example, you could then, you know, someone still went through that, A, it's disincentivizing that because they're gonna have to pay more money, and then that money goes to the city and that could be used to subsidize cost of housing or fund construction of new housing. But my point generally being that those are your policy options. And I personally support a combination of those options, but within our authority, and the reason we've spent 20, this is the 20th meeting? You know, I think the reason that we put so much of our focus on the zoning question is that it's the only element of that policy basket that is entirely within municipal control, or at least largely within municipal control by Massachusetts law. Do I agree that just changing the zoning solves the problem? No. But I just think it's why we're spending so much time talking about it. So just wanted to put that out there again, because I think it's important to note that we have talked about asking the state to give us more authority in some of these other policies. We either haven't asked them, or they've said no to other cities, so we haven't tried to ask them. But personally, I would support. Certainly, I would support the state and federal government spending billions of dollars to build more income-restricted and affordable housing. I think that's actually the huge missing piece of these conversations when it comes to increasing the supply of housing that's actually affordable for most people and allowing people of all incomes to afford housing in Medford. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: That was a motion to... A motion to refer the draft to the regular meeting. take that to combine that with the motion to adjourn. Sure.
[Zac Bears]: City Council fourth regular meeting February 25 2025 is called order Mr. please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records 25033 offered by President Bears, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we send our deepest condolences to the family, friends and loved ones of Ruth Youngblood. She was a fixture in the West Medford neighborhood and West Medford Community Center, and her vibrant presence will be missed by so many people in our Medford community. I put this resolution forward, I first met Ruth early on in my first campaign for running for city council. And we had a lot of great conversations. And I also was able to buy a lot of wonderful cards from her over the years and I still have a few left that are going to have a little bit of extra memory as I send them out that I'm going to probably hold them a little closer and think of a special occasion to send them out before I do. So, with that I will go to Councilor Tseng, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Collins, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. Is there a motion to join papers 25034, Oh three four and oh three five by Councilor Scarpelli seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Please call Council Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. I'll read them both and then I will go to Councilor Scarpelli. 25034 offered by President Bears, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we send our deepest condolences to the family, friends, and loved ones of Robert Emmett Skerry Jr. He'll be remembered for his long service as a member of the Medford School Committee and his dedication to the students of the Medford Public Schools. And we have 25035, whereas the Medford City Council mourns the passing of Robert Emmett Bob Skerry Jr., a lifelong resident of Medford, Massachusetts, who passed away peacefully on February 13th, 2025, at the age of 74, following a courageous two-year battle with cancer. And whereas Bob Skerry was a proud graduate of Medford High School, class of 1968, and furthered his education at UMass Boston, formerly Boston State College, earning a degree in political science and English, He continued his academic pursuits at Harvard University Graduate School of Education, obtaining a certificate in School and Community Relationships, reflecting his lifelong commitment to learning and public service. And whereas Bob served honorably as a member of the 101st Engineers Battalion and the Massachusetts National Guard, demonstrating his dedication to both the Commonwealth and the nation. And whereas Bob dedicated his career to education and public service, working as a teacher in Everett and Medford public school systems, where he taught civics, social studies, and English, and coached varsity soccer. He furthered his impact on the community through over four decades of service in the city government, particularly as a dedicated member of the Medford School Committee and an active participant in the Medford Chamber of Commerce, and whereas in his professional career Bob served as a senior investigator with the Bureau of Special Investigations for the Office of the State Auditor for over 35 years, upholding the values of accountability and integrity in public service. And whereas Bob was a devoted friend, neighbor, and mentor who touched the lives of many through his generosity, wisdom, and kindness, he was deeply committed to his beloved friend and partner, Maria C. DeMarco, and shared a special bond with her daughter, Margaret Meg DeMarco, her wife Claire, and their children Avery, Emerson, and Sloan, whom he cared for as if they were his own grandchildren. He's also beloved brother, uncle and cousin cherishing his relationships with his family, and whereas Bob scary was a passionate supporter of his community, often lending a helping hand to neighbors advocating for local causes and celebrating Menford spirit he was an ardent fan of the Boston Red Sox BC Eagles and Notre Dame fighting Irish His love for Medford, his faith, and his country remain steadfast throughout his life, and whereas Bob's legacy of service and kindness and unwavering dedication to the City of Medford will be felt for generations to come, and he'll be deeply missed by all who had the privilege of knowing him, now therefore be it resolved that the Medford City Council hereby honors the life and legacy of Robert Emmett Bob Skerry Jr., and expresses its deepest condolences to his family and loved ones, and recognizes his extraordinary contributions to the City of Medford, And be it for the resolve of the Medford City Council dedicates this meeting in his honor, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, I'll go to Vice President Collins. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng, we'll go to public participation. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Before we take the vote, if we could, well, let's take the vote and then we'll take a moment of silence for everybody. So if we could call the roll on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seventy affirmative, negative, the motion passes. If everyone could please rise for a moment of silence. Records the records of the meeting of February 11, 2025 or past Council is our Council is our Oh, how did you find those records. I found them in order and emotion to approve the motion of Councilors are to approve the record seconded by Councilor Callahan was called the role.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have an affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Reports of committees 24033, Vice President Collins, Planning and Permitting Committee, February 12, 2025. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have an affirmative and a negative. The motion passes 24468 offered by Councilor Tseng, Governance Committee, February 19th, 2025. Report to follow, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: and that committee of the whole is next Tuesday at 6pm. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve seconded by seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative. None of the negative motion passes. This should be in petitions presentations similar papers, my apologies I didn't catch that. But this is 25032 proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance 10 and 20 Revere Beach Parkway for referral to the Community Development Board. This is from the petitioner at 10 and 20 Revere Beach Parkway, we have Valerie Moore. from Dr. MacLennan and Fish on behalf of the petitioner. I'm just going to summarize it and say that they are representing Transom Real Estate, the applicant looking to have an amendment to the text of the Wellington Station Multifamily Overlay District, WSMOD. and they have proposed a redline amendment. This is the property consists of two parcels which are currently owned by Houlihan Properties and 10 Revere Beach Parkway LLC petitioners, both of which consent to the petition. Essentially the three clarifications that are being requested First, the table of dimensional standards establishes a maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. The petitioners property as well as others on the fells winter rear beach parkway is subject to a perpetual deed restriction held by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation that requires a minimum setback of 20 feet. So they're requesting that that be clarified a footnote that if there's a property subject to a public agency. restriction that the maximum setbacks would coincide with that restriction. Second, there's a development incentive bonuses. It currently reads a certified LEED Gold or LEED Platinum. The petitioners are proposing a modification from certified to certifiable because the LEED certification can't happen until the building is constructed. And the third is definitions section clarifying the definition of building coverage to make clear it does not include building overhangs. They're arguing that the current definition is ambiguous on this point. Right now, the only thing before us is to refer this to community development board as it's a zoning amendment. I will say I've spoken to the planning department staff on the first two of these items and those are changes that we were planning to make as part of the zoning updates project anyway. So I can't speak to the third change, although it seems to me on its face reasonable. So tonight we would refer this to Community Development Board, and then they would refer it back to us with any recommendations and conditions. And with that, I'll recognize Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Great, and I do wanna offer, we'll go to Councilor Scarpelli, and then I do wanna offer the petitioner a chance to take a look before we move forward. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so procedurally, what would happen is we receive it, we refer it to Community Development Board, which we're obligated to do, and then they'll schedule the public hearings of the CD board and work with the clerk to schedule a public hearing for us. Butters will be notified of the public hearings, and then the public hearings will go forward.
[Zac Bears]: You got it. Do we have a representative of the petitioner? Great. Just want to give you guys a chance to speak to the petition.
[Zac Bears]: And thank you. If you'd like to Councilor, if you'd like to share anything you're on. Yes, you are. The red is good in this case.
[Zac Bears]: Great. That was going to be my question or clarification, just to elucidate the process. Even if this zoning amendment moves through all the phases and is adopted, then you would have your project proposal, which would go through site plan review for the specific project with all the studies and the comment and the process at that point. That's great. Can you tell that we've been doing a zoning update for the past 18 months? And honestly, it feels like for me for the past like five years.
[Zac Bears]: I was like, oh, this again. But no, thank you for bringing this to us. I know we'll have another chance to talk to you during the public hearing if the Community Development Board sends this back to us. So thanks for being here.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro to refer this to the Community Development Board. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none of the negative, the motion passes. Thank you. All right, our next petition, petition for a CV license, common victims license, Kelly's roast beef. They were here last time. Do we have a representative this time? Yes, we do. All right. So I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli to talk about this petition.
[Zac Bears]: We can go.
[Zac Bears]: Any other comments for anyone else? I guess, are you guys representing the new venture that has purchased Kelly's?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. Could you just go into like, are you guys still pretty local or?
[Zac Bears]: And so you guys have already built and operated some, and now you've purchased the originals. Correct. Great. And do you think there might be a potential for an extended hours at some point?
[Zac Bears]: You can feel free to send back that some of us would like that. OK.
[Zac Bears]: It didn't come from George. Oh, yeah. Can we have your names just for the record? Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And you can use the business address if you want.
[Zac Bears]: Great. All right. Well, thank you. We see everything in order and the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. So the affirmative, the negative, the motion passes. Thank you. Thank you very much, everybody. Did we have King Boba last time? Okay. I, again, I apologize for that. So we'll just move beyond that. They've already been approved. For some reason, I got it in my head that we didn't have anyone here. All right, communications from the mayor. 25028, loan order, MWRA water bonds. Dear President Bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following loan order. City of Medford, loan order, MWRA water bonds, that $8 million is appropriated for the purpose of replacing lead service lines and galvanized requiring replacement and addressing service lines of unknown materials in various locations throughout the city. Eligible for financial assistance to the MWRA's lead replacement program including payment of any and all costs incidental and related thereto that to meet this appropriation, the treasurer with the approval of the mayor is authorized to borrow the set amount under and pursuant to chapter 44 section 7 and 8 of the general laws or pursuant to any other enabling authority and to issue bonds or notes of the city therefore that the treasurer with the approval of the mayor is authorized to borrow a portion, all or a portion of such amount from the MWRA pursuant to the MWRA's local water system assistance program and in connection therewith enter into a loan agreement and or financial assistance agreement with the MWRA and otherwise to contract with the MWRA with respect to such loan and for any grants or aid available for the project or the financing thereof. and that the mayor is authorized to accept and expend any grants or aid available for the project or for the financing thereof and provided that the amount of the authorized borrowing for the project shall be reduced by the amount of any such grants or aid received. I was really seeking a period there and it never came. So I'll just read the rest and further ordered that the treasurer is authorized to file an application with the appropriate officials under the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to qualify under Chapter 44A of the General Law as any and all bonds of the city authorized to be borrowed pursuant to this loan order and provide such information and execute such documents as such officials of the Commonwealth may require in connection therewith. Respectfully submitted, Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. And we have here as well the loan order opinion, KP Law. In our opinion, the loan order It is in proper legal form. And I'm not going to read that whole letter. I'll go to you guys, Commissioner McGibbon, Engineer Wartoff.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just a quick question clarification. So we have what's on record and you're saying based on some early estimates, it feels like that, or some stuff that you've already looked at, the records are just not accurate.
[Zac Bears]: So we're their top priority.
[Zac Bears]: Just two more quick clarifications about one of my fellow colleagues. Some of the slow money would pay for the analysis? Yes. OK. And then the rest of it would go towards the removal and replacement.
[Zac Bears]: And the statistical analysis is in that 10%? Correct. Great. These loans will be repaid by the rate payers or the taxpayers?
[Zac Bears]: Through the Enterprise Fund only?
[Zac Bears]: OK. So this is a bond for the Enterprise Fund.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. I will go to yes. Is this about what I just said? Okay, I'm gonna go to Councilor Scarpelli and then you, and then Councilor Callahan. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just quick clarification. Did the denial start coming out?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, got it. I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Callahan, Councilor Collins, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. And I'm guessing you would agree with the statement that The point of this is to avoid any potential future issue, not address a current issue of health or safety.
[Zac Bears]: All right. I did have one clarifying question. If records were lost, I'm sure a lot of residents have had work done on their homes at some point. Is there a mechanism for them to communicate to you? Like if they got a letter to say, oh, we had a plumber in, we have a, you know, the plumber looked at the line. Is that useful information? Is that information you can even use or is it just kind of hearsay?
[Zac Bears]: Great. All right. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. And just to, again, just for my brain to understand, The MWRA is giving out essentially a 25% discounted loan for this purpose because the regulations are so stringent around this specific issue. And that's what, like, if you could get this for mains, you would, but it's not offered because the regulations aren't requiring replacement of old mains in the same way.
[Zac Bears]: What would make it more correct?
[Zac Bears]: Right. And, and the, and the bonds, the previous bond, it was zero interest, but there wasn't like 25% rebate or. Correct. Okay. Councilor Collins and Councilor
[Zac Bears]: And it also sounded like most of the lead, only 30% to 40% of the lead are actually lead. So most of the leads aren't lead.
[Zac Bears]: So you might have a record that says it was lead and then it was replaced, but that second record got burned in a fire. So you're calling it lead, but it actually got replaced.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: And I think also just should be noted, just to reiterate your point, it's not always the line. It could be fixtures or something else in the house. Be systemic about it. We just saw at the middle schools, right? The lines are probably fine, but you had some fixtures with issues. Yeah. Usually is. OK. Great. Any further questions on this? We can motion to approve for first reading or we can motion to approve for third reading with if there's no objection. We can't do it with a loan or needs three. Okay. All right. So the motion would be to approve the first reading if there is one on the motion of councilor Callahan, seconded by councils are to approve for first reading. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I think I'm going to have a motion passes. Thank you. 25.029 wage adjustment for the traffic supervisors union respectfully request and recommend approve the following amendments traffic supervisors effective July 1 2024.5% note that this union received 2% on 630 2024 July 1 2025 2% July 1 2026 2% July 1 2027 2% so is there a motion to or do we have any further discussion on yep Yes, this is the union contract agreed with the traffic supervisors.
[Zac Bears]: A motion of Councilor Scarpelli to waive the three readings and approve for third reading, seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: I have the affirmative, none of the negative. The motion passes. 25.03.0, Community Preservation Committee Appropriation Request. Cross-Street Cemetery Monument Restoration Phase One. On behalf of the CPC, I respectfully request and recommend your honorable body approve the following recommendation. requesting 5,000 from the CPA historic reserve to the cemetery trustees of the historical commission for phase one of the cross streets emissary monument restoration project respectively submitted Breanna Lungo-Koehn. We do have manager Dupont, vice chair Hayward. And I did just want to also note that there were some other funds going towards this project. We have a motion to approve by councilor Scarpelli, seconded by councilor Sang. It sounds like it's going through. Do you wanna raise your hands to say anything or are y'all good with that? I'm seeing shaking heads on the motion. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: I have affirmative and negative motion passes. Thanks you guys. 25 or three one submitted my brain occurred if we do this in one minute I would have bet with the clerk home real petition institutional master plans I respect the request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following home real petition and transmit the general court for their consideration. This is an act granting the city of Medford the authority to require the adoption of institutional master plan subject to the review and approval of the municipality. This is, I think, the fourth refiling of this Home Rule petition, and essentially would allow the city to require that large-scale institutional facilities, for example, a Tufts University, that they have to provide a master plan to the city, and that the city can impose institutional master plan review to regulate the use of land or structures for land owned, leased, or otherwise occupied by hospitals, healthcare institutions, colleges, universities, and nonprofit educational corporations. I will go to what looks to be Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins and submit this to the legislature, seconded by Councilor Tseng. I saw your request, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan, and I also am in favor. I'm, you know, continually frustrated by the exemptions that especially large institutions get from the basic processes and procedures that this community asks of every other member of the community, down to the 3,000 square foot lot owner. Nevermind that Tufts has a budget of you know, many attend or more times the size of the city of Medford and endowment certainly bigger than any sort of reserve fund that the city of Medford has and the ability to leverage all of that to their advantage in addition to their legal protections. So very supportive of this. I will go to Councilor Lazzaro and then we do a public participation on this.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will go now to public participation. We have a hand on Zoom. name and address for the record, please. And once I'm here, you'll have three minutes. One second. Here you go. Matthew Page.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? No, I owe the clerk one piece of candy. That man always has them and he's not here to defend it. So, all right. On the motion of vice-president Collins, seconded by councilor Sang. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative, motion passes. That brings us to public participation. Is there anyone in the chambers or on Zoom who would like to speak on any matter to their heart's content for three minutes? Seeing none, is there any further motion by members of the council? On the motion to adjourn by Councilor Tseng seconded by Councilor Callahan, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: You're up.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I mean, I think what we're talking about here is continuing an effort that has borne some fruit and needs to bear more fruit. I think ideally, right, we would have enough of a budget where you could have an inclusion specialist in all the relevant departments and someone to coordinate all of them. That's a system that I think everyone would support because you'd have the level of resources that, quite frankly, other communities have, neighboring communities, but those are also communities with more money in their city budgets. And I think sometimes when we have these conversations about addressing urgent needs and where the resources should be placed. You know, I don't think anyone disagrees that the Recreation Department needs more staff and support. I don't think anyone disagrees that we need a citywide approach and citywide staffing to address inclusion. But I think the question is, what is the system that you build with the resources that you have now that is a foundation? And then what How do you then grow that with more resources. I don't have the answer to that question, but I think that that is the path, that's the way like I would like to think about and frame it. on the issue of inclusion, maybe starting with someone in the inclusion office or someone in the mayor's office that has that citywide scope. If we're talking about, there's only one person that this budget's going to be able to support in addition to who we have now, that to me might be the approach because then you have someone who could work with recreation library liaise with the schools, work with other offices, and identify, okay, we really need this type of support staff in this department. This department maybe doesn't need a whole staff person, I can work with them. And you can flesh out that person, their role would be to work across all of the departments of the city and work with the private businesses and the other agencies of the city. to maximize the impact. And I think that would be something that I would be interested in looking at. And that's not to say I don't think that the Recreation Department budget is too small, because I definitely do think it's too small. If we can find a solution on both of those questions this year, or some step forward on both of those questions this year, I think that's great. But when we're talking about Access to job opportunities for adults with disabilities access to economic opportunities in general, when we're talking about programming and resources that goes beyond the school department school system. It just seems to me that someone who could bring together. all of the different parts of the city who could be working with the economic development director and the recreation department and the school system and the library would be the staff person to start with, but.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: Boots on the ground who can be moved. But the concern then being if it's housed in one department, are they spending 90% of their time on that when maybe Yeah, I'm not saying on purpose, just because of the inherent nature of the structure, right?
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: This is why we're here. And I wonder, to that point, we have the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion office. And I think the purpose of that office is to be across the city, right.
[Zac Bears]: And I'm wondering if that's the next step. I'm putting it out there. I'm not saying make the None of us, we will all work together to get someone else to make a decision.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no, I get it. And the reason I bring up that office though is that You have a manager of the office who has access to a lot of resources, but not a lot of ability to implement on the ground because the staff isn't there. But you also don't have, if it sounds like a concern, I don't want to put words in your mouth, of wanting this person to be able to go across different programming. And I bet REC could use a full-time person 100% of the time for inclusion specialists, but the issue being if we only have one. It doesn't hit all those other things. So that's why I just throw out that idea, because it is kind of, in a sense, I think the office is intended to be that office that can go across.
[Zac Bears]: And I know for one of Frances's biggest things talking to us, budget season or otherwise is, I'd love to be doing all this other stuff, but I feel like all I can do is give people, point them in a direction. Right. And I think too, right, we have also, you know, someone to loop in here would be or to think about too is the community affairs director Lisa in the mayor's office.
[Zac Bears]: And I'm just thinking off the top of my head to your point about manage versus like ability to implement and put the boots on the ground. you know, you have the director of diversity, equity, inclusion of director of community affairs, they have that kind of they can do the management piece. And then, you know, have this person be able to be not doing all that.
[Zac Bears]: But yeah, to that point, I think structurally right, even if you're allowed, you could use the whole time just on one department, right?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I think we've seen across the board.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just I just want to make the point that I think across the board it's like we've seen places of success and then places where they've been letdowns right and I think that's the, if we're not spreading the system, I'm sure more letdowns than not right and I'll let you know how it goes in adulthood. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I mean that our first meeting we were talking about. jobs, you know, what does it mean for someone to be able to have, you know, not just a job, but a job with a pipe, a pipeline and a growth opportunity to be able to live in Medford for a long time.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Zac Bears]: I know we're gonna go to Kevin. Would you mind just hitting the mic for this. It echoes when that one's on. You're good off great. I'm just really quickly I wanted to know right. It sounds like some ideas got thrown around within City Hall and based on the information available at the time, some folks made some suggestions about what might be best. I don't think decisions were made but I also think it's important. that we make it clear that decisions weren't made because of how processes have gone in the past. So I just wanted to put that out there. And I appreciate what you're saying about maybe it's looking like a couple positions. And again, I really think, to everyone's point here, figuring out What is the process for developing exactly what we think is needed as this first initial step and then how that continues to grow and what the accountability system is for that like how are we going to continue to have that conversation, like my mind immediately went to. the discussion we've had tonight into job descriptions, and then to Shanine's point, reasonable job descriptions for people to do, and making sure that we do that in a way where we're going through the process so that everyone is included in the creation of those things. But again, I defer. Thank you for giving me time.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Scarpelli. And thanks to everyone who's spoken tonight. I think, you know, we're talking about a lot of different things. And I think your point's incredibly well taken that a piece of the big piece of this is what's the accountability and the mobilization and activating existing resources and using them in a better way. to the point, you know, once we've done as much of that as we can, or not necessarily in sequence, but in parallel, getting new resources to the table, and then making sure that everything's working in partnership. And so, and I appreciate this programming that we're working on. I actually really appreciate the regional approach, because I think it brings more resources to the table. There's obviously upsides and downsides to that too that we could talk about for a long time. But in general, how we move from here. Personally, I would make a motion that we keep this paper in committee. We actually have an initial budget meeting committee of the whole next week and several more over the next couple of months. And we keep this in committee so that we can bring it up during those budget meetings. We could, you know, as folks who are working on this say, okay, folks are available this meeting, we can get it on the agenda, keep it on the agenda for that. So I would make that motion, but I also wanna leave the floor open to whatever other next steps folks think we need to move on.
[Zac Bears]: The amendment is the recreation department establish a parent working group and for recreation programming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, and then I think there's this other piece. I don't know how to word it.
[Zac Bears]: be that point person for every other department in the city that's working with recreation so yeah and i just want to make the point that that i think we should empower council i mean councillor callahan absolutely with that the parents have been working on it and the staff have been working on it so far to keep can be to I think you know, however, however, you want to phrase it to convene that in a concrete way.
[Zac Bears]: Anyway, school committee member all apply school committee member.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng, um, I think the main takeaway from the comments we received in my review, um, and just a review of the charter study committee report, um, and what many other communities in Massachusetts do. Uh, my main question on four one is, let me just make sure it's in here. Um, both the question of the mayor serving on the school committee in general, and specifically that the mayor automatically is the chair, given the views that I've had of the other charters, my reading of the Charter Study Committee, some of the survey results, some of the comments, and the comments from our sitting school committee members, it seems to me that the way this is currently written doesn't really reflect the direction that the community talked about going. And I would like to at least have a discussion about the mayor serving as the chair versus the school committee being able to elect its own chair and potentially also the service of the mayor in general. But after we discuss this section and pending results of the discussion, I'm likely to make a motion to suggest that the may or serve as a member, but that the body be able to elect its own chair.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Tsang. I think just to apply the discussion that we've had here and what we've heard from everybody, The most important thing that I think we need to remember is there are two, essentially two organizations. in Medford that make up the government of Medford. There's the city of Medford and there's the Medford Public Schools. The chief executive officer of the Medford Public Schools is the superintendent of the Medford Public Schools, who is appointed by the school committee, which serves a combined executive legislative function, which is different than the city council, which serves a legislative function only with the executive function of the city in the role and the hands of the mayor. When we have a mayor who is the chair of the school committee, chairing, guiding the executive committee, who oversees then the superintendent, who is the appointed chief executive, you essentially have, I think, what is that, what former member Hays said, that divided division of attention between the two organizations. There's an assumption that the mayor can run the schools. I think it actually, in many ways, can disempower a superintendent. to have a mayor, not just being the chief executive of the city of Medford, but also being the chair of the executive committee of the Medford Public Schools. And I'm not speaking to this mayor or the last mayor or the mayor before in any specific way, but exercising, whether intentionally or unintentionally, powers beyond the role of a member of the school committee. And that, I think, is the fundamental question here. We need to understand that there are two institutions that we're talking about, the city of Medford, which is governed by the mayor and the city council, and the Medford Public Schools, which is governed by the school committee. And I think the arguments made that having the mayor serve as the chair of the school committee creates potential conflicts or division of attention or whatever other frame or set of words we want to put to it. is valid. So I would move, make a motion that we amend the draft charter to keep the mayor as a serving voting member of the school committee, but not serving as the chair and to update the sections as needed to reflect that change.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to not have the mayor serve as the chair of the school committee, but to remain as a voting member of the school committee. Further motion to update all relevant sections of the charter to reflect this change.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you chair saying my really my only comment on this is that I think this is a great structure. And that's why I think it should apply across the board. And that's why those were the proposals that I made. So I really appreciate the work of the charter study committee and developing this approach to local representation here in our community. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Tseng. I think what we're getting to here is suggestions that proposals come from not a place of good faith. And I think that's toxic and I think that's divisive. I think we all agree that greater representation is a key goal of a new charter. I've said that since the beginning of, before I even thought about running for office. How we get to greater representation, we have an honest disagreement on. I think when we talk about this question of voter competency, I don't think member Ruseau's questioning voter competency, I think it's, completely unfair to say that the structure of government doesn't impact the ability of the voter to understand their government. And I think that's a good faith comment. Now, no one generally likes it when I say this, but I did go to school for this and I did study this and I have studied extensively models of government. And it's just not true to say that the way that a government is structured doesn't impact a person's understanding of how they participate with that government. And I don't think it's true to say that everything in the Charter Study Committee's recommended draft is the perfect way to increase representation. If we make any changes to it, then you're against increasing representation. I just don't think that's true. I think we have honest disagreements about what it means to structure the government of the city of Medford. and the governance body of the Medford Public Schools. I think we have honest disagreements about what it means to have more representation. I don't want to call you out here, Chair Tseng, but you've said very directly, at least in some comments that I've heard recently, that as the one person of color sitting on this committee, who I think does deeply value racial diversity and representation, and also has studied this maybe at a better school than me for more time than me more recently than me, that you don't necessarily agree that what was proposed achieves the goal. It's an honest disagreement. This is the process. The study committee has put together its recommendation, this council, and as a councillor, this is my job. I have to put my name and my vote to a recommended charter that will go to the mayor, that will go to the people, and the people will vote. I don't come at this from any other position than I am making the proposals and thoughts that I think will create a structure of government that advances and increases representation for the people and that will serve this community for years to come. And I think if we go as we have been the past few meetings down this road, that it is not from that perspective that we are all approaching this fine, but that's what's toxic and divisive. And that's what's going to make it harder to pass the charter. And again, as I said, in my remarks to the state of the city, I cannot wait to vote on a new charter for the city. The charter that we have now does not work. I really deeply appreciate the work of the study committee to put together a proposal that I think by and large, even if every change I wanted to make, which is not going to happen because that's not how this works, 90% of it would remain intact with no changes at all. I think we're going to end up with a good product out of this committee, a good product out of committee of the whole good product out of the council that will go to the mayor that will go to the legislature who I have spoken to who said this is going to move forward. Your changes are not out of the scope of this process. And I hope that that's the result that we get. But I think the more that we have the conversation with the idea that this body should not be able to, or should not make specific changes because they are for some reason other than the reason that people are stating, that's what's going to derail this process. So again, we have an honest disagreement about how to increase representation and what a new charter looks like. And I'm putting forward what I believe increases representation based on the research of everything that I've read, which includes the entire study committee report, my five years of experience serving on this council, my 10 years service experience in state and local government in this community, my four years of education on political systems and structures, and the opinions that we're hearing from the people who are speaking here. We can keep going down the road and we can keep ascribing motive to people that are not the motives that they have, but I don't think it gets us anywhere. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. President Bears. Thank you, Chair Tseng. I do have an open mind. We change things all the time in this body based on the things that we discuss and the things that we talk about. The proposal that I came forward with was amended on this floor. when we talk about listening to the whole community, we can listen to the whole community. And I don't mean to spot member Van der Kloot here, but you had a great line when we were in a very, very tense time in the city and you had many, many intense meetings about a name change for a school. And I'm probably going to botch the specific line, but I think the gist of it was we are listening. We just don't agree. That's the gist of it. You said it better. We had that conversation. If we were to listen to everybody in this community, 100%, every single member, every single person would require me and George and Milva to agree 100% on everything and create a document that we all perfectly agree on. We don't agree. So we can't do that. The voters put us here. This is the city council that has to review this charter. We have been put here to do our duty to the best of our ability. And I fundamentally believe that's what we're doing. I believe that's what you're doing, Councilor Scarpelli. I believe you're representing what you believe to be the best approach, the best path forward. I also believe that of myself and Councilor Lazzaro. I believe it of Chair McDonald. I believe it of Mr. Chivino. I believe it of everybody in this room. And I believe that compelling arguments can be made to change people's minds. I, for example, haven't heard any councilor say that because member Graham and member Rousseau said it, we should have all at large or that the mayor shouldn't be on the committee at all. And those changes weren't proposed. So when we, when we put this stuff forward, I mean, it's just an honest disagreement. And I, you know, I asked the voters to listen as well. If you want, if you are a single issue voter on the charter and you want a different outcome on the charter than what's good, what may or may not come out of this committee, then you should ask the people who you want to elect what their opinion exactly is to the letter and have them follow it. As someone who wrote the platform that's now been brought up twice around this question, it didn't say there shall be eight ward representatives and three at-large representatives and that is the only system by which we will follow. If you read the full paragraph in the context of the Men for People's platform from 2023, it talks about representation and it has a context of having more local representation. And there were honest disagreements in the people who drafted that platform, honest disagreements in the interpretation of the people who are seeing it now about what it meant. And you know, whatever, throw it in our face. I should have seen that. And I should have added a little more nuance to something that's highly nuanced. My bad, use it against me. It's okay. As I've done here for the past five years and hope to continue to do as long as the voters will have me, I'm gonna do what I think is right and what I think gets us the best outcome. So we can keep throwing stuff around to the other effect. It's not gonna get us anywhere. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Just the third recommendation under comment 13 by Member Ruseau, the appointment of subcommittees and move to adopt that language or to strike that language as well.
[Zac Bears]: I'll amend my motion to just adopt the changes proposed by Member Ruseau and comment 13.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Sang. And I'm going to send any motions that I make tonight to you, to the assistant clerk, and to the clerk. We'll have it in some form. I'll BCC myself, so I'll have a backup copy. But I'm moving to adopt the comments, suggested changes in comment 13 by member Ruseau. So that's that the chair will produce the agenda, the questions of order line, and also that the chair appoints the members to the subcommittees.
[Zac Bears]: I just more have a question. maybe for the Collins Center, it does look like this is different from the prohibitions in the other sections, and that it allows someone to return to, let me see if I can get this exactly right. If a city officer or other employee who has vacated a position in order to serve as a member may return to the same office or position of employment, held at the time of the position was vacated if it has remained vacant, but shall not be eligible for any other municipal position. I was just wondering what the use case was for that. If our call-in center representatives could, I'm guessing it's just standard language that got incorporated, but I'm wondering why it's there for the school committee and not for the council or for like the mayor. It seems to imply that there may be a position that someone might vacate to then serve on the school committee that they would then return to. And I'm just not sure what that is. Could you, sorry, could you just come to the podium? Four three, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: You're not sure why it's there?
[Zac Bears]: What would the case be for that? Is it like if I just can't think of the case as someone holding open the football coach position or the the recreation director or the, you know, or.
[Zac Bears]: Now, does it mean if it's still available or if no one had ever filled it? Because that's my, as I read this, it would mean that no one had ever filled it in the interim.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: Right. So that's why I'm just. It just seems so specific to me that to make an exception, maybe it just doesn't make sense. I agree that it sounds theoretical. I just think it should apply universally or not at all. And I just don't really see a situation where someone says I'm serving in this role, but I'm running for school committee. And then they're coming, I guess is the idea that like if a teacher ran for school committee, they wanted to be a teacher again. And so it wouldn't necessarily need to be like their specific position. It could just be that a vacancy in the teaching force is there. So they don't have to have a one year cooling off period.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Cause that's the other piece of this where I read it just a little bit. You know, is it only that the high school US history teacher can return to the high school US history teacher position or right?
[Zac Bears]: Right, no, but does this allow that or not allow it? It's more what I'm not clear on.
[Zac Bears]: It shows up in many charters, okay. It seems really technical. I'm not gonna belabor it anymore. I don't have a problem with striking it and just having it be a one year cooling off period for everybody. Is that a motion?
[Zac Bears]: I think the question is actually more convoluted than that. Not that I think that was pretty. It seems to me as I read this but it says in the Council section to dash nine. It says that the Councilor cannot hold the city office or appointed city employment for one year. It then says in 3-1 of the mayor, no former mayor shall hold any compensated appointment or city office for one year. But then it says under the school committee, no member of the school committee shall hold any city office or employment for one year, except if they're going back to some other position that they had before and that position is still vacant. So that's the inconsistency.
[Zac Bears]: The only thing I'm considering proposing is saying, make it the same for all three. No one can serve for a year regardless of position and not have this special exception just to the school committee that says that they could return back to something whereas a Councilor or a mayor could not. So keep it in that there's a one year cooling off but not have this additional language around the school committee that doesn't exist in the other two sections. If that makes sense.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, I would just move to strike after the semicolon beginning with the word provided, and then it's consistent across all three bodies.
[Zac Bears]: I think the proposal from Member Ruseau is technical or clerical, just changing the word department to the word system. So I would support moving that, but if you want to read Member Graham's, I would think we should have a conversation about this. I have some questions about it.
[Zac Bears]: I have a question for our representatives from the Collins Center. It seems like there's a question from member Graham around the words upon recommendation of the superintendent in section four, five, subsection B, subsection one, upon the recommendation of the superintendent to establish and appoint these following positions as authorized by general law. And I guess I'm just wondering, does that, member Graham seems to be saying that the hiring of those positions is by the school committee and that having the words upon the recommendation of the superintendent would reduce the authority that the school committee would have relative to the general law. And I'm wondering, is that, is that how you interpret this? I just, I think we should get into that a little bit more.
[Zac Bears]: I guess my question is if there were three resumes and the superintendent made a recommendation of one, but the school committee wanted to choose another person, would the school committee still be able to do that?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: No, I mean, that's kind of how I'm interpreting it too. Because right before that it says subject only to policy guidelines and directives adopted by the school committee. And it seems to me that if the school committee wanted to define a policy guideline and directive that they wanted to consider only the recommendations of the superintendent, they could do that. But that by putting it in, it adds language that could be interpreted differently depending on the different person involved or litigation.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I think if it's internal, then we should strike the phrase and just keep it internal and not have it be a potentially conflicted
[Zac Bears]: I would move, yeah, just to strike that language, since it seems to be covered under the previous phrase, if the school committee wants to have that process. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just no, just to that comment.
[Zac Bears]: No, just that this comes from, it seems like this all stems from chapter 71, section 59, which has a third way of defining this. It says, upon the recommendation, the school committee may also establish and appoint these positions or self-report to, but that the school committee shall, then the next phrase is the school committee shall approve or disapprove of the hiring of said positions. And given what our friends from Collins Center said was that basically this is internal to the process that the school committee is setting up anyway. I think we're having a convoluted argument about trying to do the same thing. Could you explain further what clarification is being asked?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it sounds like we should get a recommendation from counsel to the school committee as to specific language to clarify the different sourcings of all of the different possible interpretations of this. So I amend my motion to request a specific language be proposed by counsel to the school committee or that they suggest language that addresses their concerns.
[Zac Bears]: I was just going to make the motion to make the clerical change.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears? I think the question here over what we currently have is a question of a public hearing. What does that mean? and requiring action to be taken. Right now, any one resident can put a petition on or just come to a meeting and say whatever they want. So this would actually significantly raise the bar on that front requiring 25 signatures, et cetera. But I think the question is, about requiring action, what is a public hearing? Right now, public hearings are clearly defined. We do them for zoning. We do them for petitions for specific special permits. So it just seems to me to be, I don't know if it seems to be trying to enshrine in the charter process that is potentially more onerous than the existing process that we have now by the city council rules which this council hasn't voted to adjust so. Yeah, I certainly think if we're talking about having a public hearing and requiring action right now, the only people who can put anything on the city council agenda are members of the city council and the mayor. And this significantly reduces that. So the threshold I think should be a question. And then I think it's also a question of how it changes existing public participation processes where right now you can go to the clerk's office as an individual and file a petition to appear under public participation. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Do you have a list of like generally what these thresholds are?
[Zac Bears]: 50 or a hundred.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Well, we'll hear both. We hear from people on one. No signatures needed in a single paper right now. I just think this raises the level of a hearing and an action and a time period.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Yeah. So OK. So it's generally 50 to 100 in a community of this size?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, just a hypothetical. if the, what if someone put a petition in that said, we believe that the council, we don't like the mayor, the mayor's doing a bad job, so we believe the council should use its authority under the charter to remove the mayor. How, I guess the question is who, we're coming back to the determination of if there are some things that this can apply to and some things that it can't apply to, you know, that should probably be listed in the charter so that residents don't think that an arbitrary decision is being made based on their specific petition, but that there's actually a specific category of exemptions and that's already exists here in the ineligible provisions for the other citizen initiative recommendations. I'm just saying like, if we're saying that there are certain personnel related things that you couldn't file a free petition for, then what's the list of things that this applies to and doesn't apply to because otherwise to be quite frank as the chair, I'm gonna get blamed either by the public or by members of this council for picking and choosing.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So the law department would determine what's eligible and ineligible?
[Zac Bears]: And where would residents be able to point to, or where would I be able to point residents to say, here's what a proper subject is or isn't for a public hearing?
[Zac Bears]: I could share the legal opinion, but then they're just going to say the legal opinion is biased or the chair wrote a biased opinion with the legal department. I'm just saying there has to be a way that we can point residents to a clear set of conditions that doesn't end up pointing back to my free speech has been quashed, you know, arguments, which we hear all the time.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I hear I just want to be clear here that this isn't actually free petition. Because even if someone submits the signatures, then the law department gets to look through all of the general laws and decide, well, it doesn't actually apply. And I guess my other point is, are we actually then going to be sending every single one of these to the law department to make a determination who makes that choice?
[Zac Bears]: I think you would be surprised at the level of misrepresentations of people's character that's happened based on decisions like this recently here in the city.
[Zac Bears]: I know.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. We have had, I could probably point to 10 to 15 instances in the last 24 months where the questions that I'm asking have been raised over and over again to make arguments that procedural decisions were actually political or personal decisions. And so I'm asking, what is an unbiased resource that we could point to in this section to make sure that accusations can't be hurled?
[Zac Bears]: OK. So that these shall all be reviewed by the law department, and these will be allowed if they're not constrained by the general law, something like that.
[Zac Bears]: Has this been reviewed since the Shurtleff decision? since the Supreme Court decision around Shurtleff and creating public spaces, and since the Supreme Judicial Court's determination, has this template language been reviewed?
[Zac Bears]: You don't have one right now.
[Zac Bears]: their guidance on issues of similar, and this is the reason why I think we're belaboring the point, their guidance on similar topics has been essentially, if you create a public forum, so for example, if you allow groups to fly, individual private groups to fly a flag on City Hall, you have to allow anyone to fly any flag. So I guess the question is, what is the interface here? If we create this public forum and we're saying right now that the law says, well, you can't discuss personal attacks or personnel matters or this X, Y, and Z, but another law and a Supreme Court decision says, if you're restricted at all, you're limiting the first amendment, where does that line get drawn? And our council seems to be, the council we have right now seems to be leaning towards, there's no limit. So, That's just where my question comes from.
[Zac Bears]: Oh. I could ask to turn up the Zoom audio more. I've been able to follow along with the captions relatively well, but I'll ask Sarah to turn up the Zoom. Thank you. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm more amenable to actually what Councilor Scarpelli said. Personally, I was just looking up a number of other communities and I'd like to look at a threshold of 100, but I also think that we should not dictate this for the school committee It's been made pretty clear through their actions and their rules that they have an opinion here. I'm happy to do this for the city council. Somerville's draft charter from their charter review has a section 211 group petitions just for the city council. It doesn't define this process for the school committee. So that would be something I would be comfortable with. And I've taken some language from the Somerville petition, Somerville charter draft, and some from the Charter Study Committee's recommendations to create a proposal for an amended section. But I've also heard from colleagues that they may want to take a different path than what Councilor Scarpelli and I have discussed.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think to Councilor Lazzaro's comment or other vote leaves it pretty open. But I also, again, and this is where I come back to with the school committee, the school committee is an executive body and a legislative body. And this is where my concern comes back in. They have authority over contracts, authority over personnel matters, authority over certain appointments. I mean, significantly expanded executive authority compared to this body as a council being solely legislative. And I would note similarly, so there's no sort of free petition to the mayor proposed here to petition any sort of executive authority on the city side of things. So that's, again, where my concern comes in. The definition of measure here as applied to the school committee certainly could be, I think, read incredibly expansively into executive authority. you know, executive actions by the executive. I mean, there are quasi executive legislative committee that makes, I mean, essentially runs the Metro Public Schools. So it's just that between that reality and this definition of measure, I think applying this section equally to the both bodies creates unintended consequences potentially.
[Zac Bears]: That I don't feel like I know enough about how they work to answer that question. Did you have a?
[Zac Bears]: I would propose an amendment to the motion on the floor, the first motion on the floor to amend the language have the title to read group petitions, which is what the Somerville Charter proposal says, and then amend the language to read as follows. The City Council shall hold a public hearing and act with respect to every petition which is addressed to it, which is signed by at least 100 municipal voters as certified by the Board of Election Commissioners. along with their addresses, and that seeks the passage of a measure. Once received, the petition shall be reviewed by the city's legal department to ensure it does not conflict with any provisions of general law regarding public hearings and legally permissible topics thereof. If approved for consideration, a hearing shall be held by the city council or a committee or a subcommittee thereof, and the city council shall act on the petition within three months of filing with the city clerk. Hearings on two or more petitions filed under this section may be held at the same time and place. At least 14 days before the hearing, the city clerk shall notify 10 petitioners whose names first appear on each such petition, publish a general summary of the subject matter of the petition, and post notice of the date and time of the public hearing. hearing should not be held on any subject more than once in a given 12 month period as determined by the council president.
[Zac Bears]: It's a combination of the Somerville Charter, which I know you guys worked on, and the Charter Study Committee's proposal.
[Zac Bears]: Reword how that, I phrased that? Yeah. Okay, if you have a better phrasing, I'm happy to take that.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So something after the signatures are received, before the hearing is scheduled, some sort of legal review, and you guys can come up with that in the next couple of weeks? For the legal section? Yeah, I'm fine with that. So I'll just change that. That there's some, and I mean, I just, that part I just kind of went. That I'd wordsmith myself, but the rest of it was from the two drafts. I'm happy to just change that to, I'll leave my language in there so you can see it. If it's of any value to you, it will be sent to you, but also Collins Center can draft a phrase around the legal.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, draft language. around legal review. All right, I'll put that in parentheses, if so everyone's clear.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'm gonna send, I'm doing a document, I'll send it to everybody. But yeah, it's essentially it's city council 100 legal review and everything else basically stay the same, but there's a little extra notice to the public 14 days instead of 10.
[Zac Bears]: And they say we can't get anything done.
[Zac Bears]: There we go. Okay. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: except it doesn't pause.
[Zac Bears]: That law is in effect. So one of my things here was just trying to be consistent across the scope of the initiative, the referendum, and the recall. And I think I'm guessing these are standard terminologies that are used in a lot of charters, but to me, initiative and referendum are words that often are used to mean the same thing.
[Zac Bears]: So I think it might be helpful to use different language, something like a veto or a repeal or something like that when we're talking about the referendum and something maybe some sort of positive modifier to the word initiative to indicate that it's creative in some way, just so that it's clear that there's kind of a and positive idea of an initiative versus the idea of countering the action of a body through the referendum. I just think that's a lot more legible and understandable by the average person because to me, I mean, especially if you're moving here from somewhere else and nevermind that we call ours questions and propositions and neither we don't call them initiatives or referendums when we're talking about the state ballot. I just think something that-
[Zac Bears]: Right, yeah. Exactly. So, you know, just all of these interchangeable words, I think having some sort of modifier in there to more clearly elucidate the intent of each section would be helpful. And then my other question here really, and something I'd like to think about proposing is that the thresholds and the timelines be the same for all of the processes. You don't recommend that, and I'm wondering why.
[Zac Bears]: And the timeline is 40 days for the recall.
[Zac Bears]: So it's 20. I'm sorry, where's the 28 days? It's 40, I think.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it says said recall petition shall be returned and filed within 40 days.
[Zac Bears]: And so we have 21 for the referendum, the repeal. counter. We have 40 for the recall, and then I think we had 60 or something for the initiative.
[Zac Bears]: Right. But I think that's true of all three.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, I think that's subjective, to be honest.
[Zac Bears]: By the way, I didn't even make my proposal yet. I'm actually suggesting more time. So 45 days for recall, 45 days for referendum, 45 days for initiative. And that way you don't have this kind of arbitrage opportunity for picking a different mode because you have more time to do one or another.
[Zac Bears]: But nothing prevents them from turning it in sooner than 45 days.
[Zac Bears]: So if they're really mad about it, I'm giving them 45 instead of 21.
[Zac Bears]: Right. I guess what I'm saying is also, though, 21 days is probably, you're just not going to be able to do it. I think my point is that if you're right, and people are really angry, and they want to get it done really fast, they'll collect all the signatures in 15 days either way. But maybe they need between 21 and 45 days to collect the signatures.
[Zac Bears]: But I think that you could make the same argument for the initiative or the recall.
[Zac Bears]: To most voters, I think a referendum is a brand new thing. I mean, we're not having a... I think this is a subjective... I really don't.
[Zac Bears]: I guess, why?
[Zac Bears]: And why is that different from something that the council passed? Most people wouldn't have seen that either.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's my experience.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we don't have great attendance at our meetings. We don't have a ton of
[Zac Bears]: Yes, but I think if you were to look at the reading, it's not like 10,000 people are taking a look at that every week that we make votes.
[Zac Bears]: Well, what I'm saying is my point is I think we should have more time for all of these measures, and then it should be consistent. I don't understand.
[Zac Bears]: My rationale is that what's the difference between an initiative and a referendum? I don't see one. And I don't understand why you'd give someone who wants to stop the council from doing something less time than you would give someone who wants to create a new thing more time. I'm actually arguing against the council's power. So for people who are making faces about it, I don't understand why you wouldn't give people more time.
[Zac Bears]: that it is for them to propose a new idea. And personally, I have less of a stake in the time frames here. I just felt the consistency made sense because I think these are generally fundamentally the same things and that if a resident or a group of residents wants to try to create something or repeal something or recall an elected official, I personally wouldn't want to give them different timeframes to do that. My bigger concern is around the thresholds. I think they should all be 15%. I think that defining these thresholds differently and having a different democratic threshold for these different proposals, that does work me a little bit more than the timeframes. But I appreciate the spirit of discussion.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair saying and Councilor Leming. Yeah, I mean, I think for this, you know, when I looked at the math You can't start a recall in the first six months. You can't start a recall in the last six months. You need 145 days, or you have between 119 and 145 days to even get it done anyway. And then you're probably holding a special election where you're probably not getting 20% turnout, if we're being honest. Um, that would be my inclination or to say that the recall should be limited to any office that has a four year term. Um, right now that would just be the mayor under this charter. Cause I just think we're talking about most likely having the city spend a bunch of money on a special election that doesn't reach the turnout and then having an election within.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. I don't know which ones do that.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, yeah. That's a campaign tactic in and of itself is to say, if you don't vote, then it's invalid anyway. Yeah. And so, I mean, I think this section generally avoids the Fall River situation where, at least as far as I read it, the vacancy is you're not electing the new person on the same ballot, right? Which was the Fall River Nightmare where they were recalled, but then reelected on the same ballot. I shouldn't tell you this, but I interned with that person in Senator John Kerry's office many, many years ago. Who would have known? But that situation, I'm sure anyone could have found it out. There's, you know, lists of that. But yeah, I mean, for me, it really, I have a hard time with the recalls for the two-year terms given the conditions laid out here.
[Zac Bears]: Mildly, I don't disagree with you. I just think it's functionally essentially impossible.
[Zac Bears]: And then you might end up it seemed to be, I don't know if it seemed to me, and this was another question I had, that you could potentially end up with a recall question, and the reelection of the same seat on the same ballot. It said, let me see, like,
[Zac Bears]: If any other city elections to occur with occur within 120 days after the date of the certificate.
[Zac Bears]: What would happen in that scenario? If someone was to be, wouldn't we end up in a fall river situation where the person was recalled, so they'd be removed for... But if the person is subject to recall, this is not about the charter, this is about the community or the municipality.
[Zac Bears]: Possibly, sure. I'm just saying, isn't it possible? I mean, I think again, it's unlikely. And again, I think most of these outcomes are unlikely, but if you were to have the same office recalled on the city ballot within the next term on the ballot, you could end up in a situation where a majority of voters vote to recall, but a plurality of voters vote to elect the person for the next term.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Right. Yeah. Or what I'm saying, say for at-large, you may need your thresholds lower. So you'd end up in that situation. Yes, 50% of people said recall, but 35% said reelect Jason Correa. So it's just, again, I think it's just with the two-year piece.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: Right. So you'd end up with the second place finisher from the previous election serving the last two months. I'm just, I think the person, if such a scenario were to play out, I think the perception would be regardless of if the process and procedure was followed correctly, that the charter didn't work because someone was recalled and then reelected on the same ballot. It's just a, it's an outlier situation, but you know.
[Zac Bears]: That's I'm sure what they said in 1980, the Fall River Charter. I have one other question around eight, four ineligible measures, section, subsection three that says the, the city budget or the school committee budget as a whole, should that also say as a whole or in part? I mean, I know we don't have line item veto, but I'm guessing we don't want to give the citizen referendum process or initiative line item veto either.
[Zac Bears]: Would any appropriation be subject to referendum?
[Zac Bears]: But it wasn't a debt exclusion. It was a on the city's debt service referendum. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: And so then we're subject to whatever the case law is, and we don't know, because there's not much.
[Zac Bears]: And we are already the precedent in Trustees of Tufts College versus City of Medford, which is the Dover Amendment case. And I don't want us to invite that again, because we are not happy to be that precedent. I can tell you that. Thank you for the answer. I guess my only other question here, um, Councilor Leming and I were talking about it. It may be the question he's about to ask. So I'm sorry if I'm taking your thunder away. It's just about recall. Um, is it, you know, is it worth putting that in as an ineligible measure? Uh, the recall of a city official, um, or also right. So, so it just automatically, okay. And then like, what about something that wasn't included in here was a change in the title of a city agency or a multi-member body. So let's say we went from, we've gone from the community development office to the planning development sustainability office. I can see potentially someone saying, we don't like how that's worded. Have you seen any sort of prohibitions against referendums on, on things like title changes or names?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. That's all I have for now. I have a couple of motions, but I'll wait to hear from everybody else.
[Zac Bears]: Do you need 50% to stay on, or they have to get 50% to kick you off? Right. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Assuming there's 20% turnout, and assuming Assuming there's 20% turnout, is this an affirmative or a negative? Is it 50% plus one of the voters voting must vote to recall? Okay, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I have a few motions. The first motion is regarding the threshold for citizen participation mechanisms. And it would just align 8-2 and 8-3 at 15%. So the supplemental for the citizen initiative would be that the supplemental initiative petition will be signed by a number of additional voters that is not less than 10% of the total number they're taking together. The total signatures taken together shall contain the signatures of not less than 15% of the total numbers of voters in the city.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, 5% first, and then 10% if the council doesn't take action on their item. And then similarly for the citizen referendum, also the 15%. I have two more motions. The second motion is regarding ineligible measures. I would amend three to either strike as a whole or in part or other language that the Collins Center may recommend to clarify that no portion of the budget is subject to this. My preference would be that no appropriation is subject to this provision. Before I finish making my motion, can I ask just one further question of you guys on this question of the appropriations. It sounded like between the language of the city budget or the school committee budget as a whole, an appropriation for the payment of the city's debt or debt service, an appropriation of funds to implement a collective bargaining agreement, that that only leaves this one capital appropriation that you were talking about. The Newton North case that you mentioned.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. But I will object to that. Then I would amend that motion to then be, we amend section, subsections three, four, and five, pending your review to not have these referendums or initiatives on appropriations or the budgets. And I just want that language to be clear. Then I also moved to add section 12 here for a change in title of a city agency or multi-member body.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, that's what I'm intending. I'm not intending anything more than that. And then finally, I would just move to request language from the Collins Center to have the recall provision apply to the Office of the Mayor only.
[Zac Bears]: And then that motion would also. And then, finally, the third motion is to edit the recalibration to apply it to the position.
[Zac Bears]: I believe it, but if you want to make an amendment here now.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, so just for convenience, comment 25 from... I would propose that we adopt that amendment.
[Zac Bears]: Not usually my issue. You should be good now. Great. So I would propose adopting comment 25 and making that change.
[Zac Bears]: And I would further move that we request that the call-in center just draft language to add that the original appointing authority will appoint a replacement in case of a vacancy. And then I do have, I'll leave it.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, what do you mean they all follow the structure?
[Zac Bears]: No, I think this goes back to a question I asked, I think, at our second meeting, which was, we have a button, our traffic commission is created by a special act.
[Zac Bears]: Our community development board, a special act, a couple, maybe one or two others. I might be wrong and those might just be the only two.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So would this overrule the structure as defined by special act for those bodies?
[Zac Bears]: The special acts always rule. Okay. Um, and are we, are we going to have a conversation at our committee of the whole about the different special acts governing Medford? I know you said you were kind of pulling together a list there. Is that, are we going to, I want to, I would be great to incorporate that some way into a draft charter.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Under article five of this charter.
[Zac Bears]: So article five, and now we're going down a rabbit hole that maybe we shouldn't have, but, um, so under article five, the city could.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Why would it be under article five and not by ordinance?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Now we're getting into some third order stuff here. But so the code isn't controlled by the ordinance?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. All right. We don't have to have this conversation right now. We can have it in a couple of weeks. I appreciate the clarification. Are those the only special acts right now that you found that are going to continue?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Okay, great.
[Zac Bears]: I did have one thing on... Member Ruseau submitted some comments on section one.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I also had one thing on section 10.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair saying my one comment is in section 10-6. An Oscar and Emmy. 10-6 it says the time of taking effect the mayor will be elected to a four-year term November 2nd 2027 council composition new council be November 2nd should there also be a line school committee it doesn't say when this takes effect for the school committee oh yeah we can add that all right great thank you uh yeah well there is also just one thing
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just, I would adopt member Ruseau's comments two, three, four, and five. Okay. I'll go through them very, very quickly.
[Zac Bears]: They are, I'll read them. It is changing the definition of city agency to not include the Medford public schools, changing city officer department head to not include the Medford public schools, city website to not include the Medford public schools and exclude an advisory, add the language or the school committee to the words or an advisory committee appointed by the mayor or the school committee.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, what?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, comments 2 through 5.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think I ever introduced them, which I'm happy to read my memorandum if that's helpful.
[Zac Bears]: So there's a proposed amendment to compensation of elected officials. This would set the compensation of the mayor, city council, and school committee by charter, eliminate the authority of the city council to set compensation and have a maximum increase of 2% per year. It would end perceived conflict of interest because no elected official would be able to set their own pay or the pay of fellow elected officials at any point, even after the following election. this would establish a maximum increase of 2% per year with a smaller increase if the city's key department heads did not receive an increase of at least 2% per year. And it would make this a charter issue, essentially that the scheme could only be amended by a charter amendment approved by the voters.
[Zac Bears]: And I can get into more specifics too. That was just the general summary. Um, I think if you don't mind, Councilor Tseng to find my red line version here, but in general, um, I think one thing we've heard in the past is that folks don't understand why the mayor is compensated for the office of the mayor and the office of the school committee. And so this would say that the mayor's compensated just for being the mayor. But it would set that rate at $160,000 a year, which is pretty much what the mayor's making now, certainly with inflation in the next three years, what the mayor would be making at that point. And then it sets the council and school committee members and officers as a percentage of the mayor's salary. 20% for members, 25% for officers, if I recall correctly my proposal. So that's just generally the proposal. I think, you know, again, this would be in the charter, it would have to be approved by the voters as part of the charter. The charter study committee proposal was to have a committee make recommendations. And then again, the council would vote on those recommendations. And they would go into effect after the following election for each office. I don't think it addresses kind of one of the core conflicts. I don't think that proposal addresses one of the core conflicts at hand, which is one, a lot of the objections seem to be elected officials setting the pay of other elected officials when we've recently had these conversations. And two, that the council just didn't do its job. For 25 years, there was no adjustment to the school committee pay. For at least eight years, there was no adjustment to the mayor and city council pay. And I think a lot of that has to do with the fact of the perception of the council setting rates of pay, especially under current law. So that's why I made this proposal. I'm open to thoughts amendments changes. And, you know, my hope is that if none of these amendments that I proposed are adopted regarding compensation. we really just try to flush out a little bit more of the question of ensuring that if it does end up being incumbent on the council to make these choices, that there's some mechanism beyond just an outside committee making a recommendation so that we don't end up in a situation where the school committee goes for 24 years with no, no just adjustment or even review of their, their compensation. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. You know, here I'll go bad news, good news. I don't believe that we should pay different Councilors differently based on the seats that they have. And I don't think that moving to more local district word representation really will mean that any one of us will be doing a different job than we're doing now. But on the flip side, I appreciate Councilor Scarpelli's thought, and it actually inspired, I think, a thought for me that it might be, and you know, depends on who's in the office, right? But I think there's a little bit of an incentive here that maybe we could put in to Councilor Scarpelli's point that the increases only go into effect at a time when all collective bargaining agreements are settled. And that might be a way I would be supportive of that amendment because I think that's actually an interesting way to, you know, obviously I support some pretty much more significant empowerment of our public employee unions than maybe all of us do here, as I've mentioned the right to strike before here. this is a way, I think, to go towards your point. And my only thing would be that it should just go back to the same starting point. So if someone can't, if the executive hasn't settled all of the agreements, then we have to wait to a point when that happens, and then everybody gets their changes at that time. But that'd be something I'm totally interested in. I think that's a creative idea. An interesting thought from Councilor Scarpelli that gave me an interesting thought. So that would be an amendment I would support.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears. I just wanted to note. Just wanted to note that. Again, one of the reasons that we had the conversation that we had was because no change have been made for 25 years. And, you know, again, No one would stand for that, having no changes for 25 years. But I also want to make a point that Councilor Callaghan brought up a measure that everyone else on this council strongly disagreed with one week after the election. So I just don't think it's a fair characterization to say that we brought up this thing. She brought up something. Her idea was, of course, actually to make changing elected official pay harder, but that got lost, I think, in a very complicated conversation. So I'm pretty sure all of us are on record at that meeting being pretty clear that we didn't support the initiative and having the conversation or the timing of it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I just, can I ask you guys the question now about different forms of compensation structures that you see? I know that, not that we really are looking to replicate any of the existing charter, but that the initial charter that we're under now did set the rate of pay for the mayor.
[Zac Bears]: yeah, leading up to the special act we have now, which is what we vote, you know, if certain people get a raise, we get a raise too, basically.
[Zac Bears]: And I guess, so this, would setting an amount in the charter be a flag for the legislature, considering that it exists at least in our charter and I would guess in other charters?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. We were unique.
[Zac Bears]: We were the only charter that had that.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: I withdraw my amendments. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Just like this. I'm sure it'll be a slightly easier job. I would just like to make a final motion. And this is just, we've made a bunch of amendments. I want to get this due diligence right. I think the only people that really hurts are you and me, because I think you guys were planning to do this anyway, but I'd make a motion to request that the chair saying the vice chair and the call center take the committee reports and the motions as drafted. And we each create our own red line versions. from the existing charter, just to make sure that we all catch all the different changes that we've made. I think the three I's are better than one of the six or however many you guys have. I only have two. So just be emotion and that we get those. by February 27th so that we can include those in the Committee of the Whole packet for March 4th.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we could add on to that that we refer this to Committee of the Whole and adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just wanted to thank you guys for continuing to update these early maps based on the conversations that we've been having. I know a next step is going to be looking at the dimensional requirements. But I just wanted to be clear here, all of the residential districts, we're talking about a three-story maximum height. Okay, so we're not going over three stories anywhere. Have you had any initial thoughts into the dimensional requirements? Is that something we're probably going to see at the next meeting? Okay. And I think in general, I appreciate the changes that have been made. I think, you know, this NR2 district north of the square was something we talked about, and I think it just better, it's more cohesive and kind of better describes the topography of the area. Other than that, my only question was about this mixed-use two district, or potential mixed-use district, and that looks like it's at the Mystic Place Towers, essentially, and it's the idea there just that I'm guessing we're not going to see a significant redevelopment of that in any reasonable period of time, but is the idea just that we don't want to put that in an urban residential too because it would be non-conforming because the structures are so tall? Okay, thank you. And then just basically everything else that's of that kind of height and scope fall into the mixed-use corridors and square districts? Okay, that's a yes. I'm just... Got it. Kit, if you could... Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And then my only other kind of very minor question is around on South Street. There's a number of parcels. You see kind of this urban residential four corners right southwest of Medford Square, the orange right under the words Medford Square. I'm pretty sure the buildings on the northwest, northeast, and southeast corners of that intersection are apartments or condos. Could you go into it all the condition of the buildings, south of South Street and west of what I think is Thomas Street of my mind is correct. Basically, This title piece right here in this you are to district.
[Zac Bears]: Great, yeah, if you could, just that's the only thing I looked at that I saw that I thought might be. It's just that south, you know, if we take the four corners of that intersection, that southwest piece, I might be remembering the built condition differently than it actually exists. But thank you, and I really appreciate this updated proposal. I think just making clear to everyone that we're talking about three-story structures in these neighborhoods is just really important. and that, you know, dimensional requirements and those other things are going to really come into play. But, oh, the only other thing we talked a little bit about, kind of a design guideline or, I don't know, advice, something like that around slopes of roof lines and enabling that third story to be mostly utilized, but also try to keep with some of the to avoid the flat roof kind of effect. Is that something we might be talking about for when we talk about dimensional as well?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Collins. Similarly, yeah, I definitely agree that that area between Main Street and Medford Street that contains Bow Street and Dexter Street and some of those others is something to be considered. I'm also looking at the area between Boston Ave and the Somerville border. It's just those three, three kind of parcels on, or sections of parcels on like Bristol. And those might, I think you might wanna, those could be, I think, considered as well, just because they're so proximate to Ball Square and so proximate to, Somerville zoning, including in some cases, like on the other side of the street. And I know that they're zoned up to three. So that might just be another place to think about just with the transit access on, I can't think of the other names of those roads, but those three right there. And something I think I've had, just looking at this area, some questions about is Harvard Street in general. I'm just wondering if... I mean, I think it'll be relatively easy when we talk about the corridors to decide more specifically what the corridor parcels are. And it looks like from your nodding heads, that's kind of the thought that you guys are having as well. And I see that on Main Street and Medford Street, but I have just a general qualm about Harvard Street. It's certainly a corridor from the perspective of vehicular bike walking traffic, like it's a connecting street, but the built condition really is, I think, pretty much continuous with the neighborhoods. So just looking at that, I can see coming back to it after we do the corridors, but I think there's just as strong an argument to be made that maybe we should just connect the districts that are currently separated out to the east and the west of Main Street as we are right now. But I'm interested to hear more what you guys were thinking there.
[Zac Bears]: Just before, just directionally, we're probably talking about the neighborhood zones moving in towards the corridors, not the other way around. So people probably parcels that might not be in the neighborhood boundary right now, probably ending up in them versus the other way around.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Okay. And that makes sense. And I think, you know, some element of the The more I looked at it, the more I was like this feels more like kind of that dashed corridor along high street that we have and I think there's probably Some of Boston have a budding parcels to and I see them, you know, you have the Boston have parcels on the southwest side of Boston have that are in the neighborhood zone and up to a certain point and then you have the mixed uses. And so I see where you're going for there, but I think it's just important to note for folks that like, just because something is still in that kind of mixed use square and quarter boundary right now, there's a likelihood, especially if it seems like a lot of the existing structures are purely residential, that those are gonna end up being part of the residential districts or something rather than part of the mixed use or square corridor type districts.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, just, I know there was also the commercial nodes, so maybe we wanna talk about that. Huh? Yeah, the little, yeah, there was that map where there was just like the tiny, Within these districts, there are a few places that have commercial on them.
[Zac Bears]: Just, yeah, talked about those, the commercial nodes and the residential districts. Were we going to talk about that?
[Zac Bears]: No, it's fine.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. And I think just one thing on that topic that I think the most important thing that I think we were reminding a lot of folks on this on Monday night, right. The goal generally is that and obviously like to change the zoning does not mean that someone has to change anything about their property. So if you're a single family home, and you don't want to change anything about it, just because the zoning district changes doesn't mean you have to change anything. Something we're also trying to control for here, and it's tough, right, is, and because state law has special exemptions for single-family zoning, it makes it even harder for single-family structures, the proximity of that of those parcels to the transit access, even before the Green Line extension we've been seeing a lot of a lot of neighborhoods, very very large single family new or significantly renovated single family structures being built, and I think we don't want to see that. It's just not what we want to see. I think most people generally who live here now are not happy to see what was a relatively standard-sized single-family unit turn into a mini-mansion that's maxing out lot size and dimensionals. And I think the closer you are to a T-station, the more that the financials are probably going to break down for a property owner or developer to say, Oh, I could build a single family here. I could take this relatively normal sized single family, turn it into this giant 3,800, 4,000 square foot single family. It's 500 feet from the T and sell it for $2.2 million, right? when you could have, if you don't allow the by right new construction or significant renovation, at least they'd have to do two units. And the goal would be to incentivize them to do three or four because for 1000 square foot units is gonna be much better close to something like that in a walkable neighborhood than a giant mansion. So I kind of like more interested or amenable to the idea of saying, how can we make sure that people who are in existing single families now don't get that, by not allowing single family buy right, we can avoid all the impacts of them becoming nonconforming versus saying, we're gonna allow the single family so close to the transit where the land value is so high and then maybe get these weird externalities of big new single family housing exactly where we don't want it to be.
[Zac Bears]: Just to draw this down to maybe an unnecessary rabbit hole of use case, but this is probably only going to apply if they want the accessory unit and accessory structure right. Because otherwise, if it's in the principal structure, they just call it a two unit, and that's allowed by right.
[Zac Bears]: So it's, it's, it's certainly case specific, right? Where the two unit, you would have more freedom as to the square footage, but maybe a higher parking requirement. So you might choose to do the ADU because the parking requirements 0.5 less. And so you can fit that on a lot based on the dimensionals. But certainly, I guess my main question is, you'd have to do that if they wanted to do it in a non-principle structure, right? But you couldn't have, because we're not allowing two I'm assuming we're not allowing two principal structures on the same lot. Like they couldn't say it's a two unit, but one unit's in a detached garage and one unit's in the principal structure.
[Zac Bears]: So that's a case where not allowing the ADU For the non conforming single family would eliminate the ability to add a second unit either way, because, yeah, so I think that's where I'm just trying to take it down that yeah down that rabbit hole where like oh well. But they could have two units anyway so do they need it but not if they wanted to detach structure if they want to preserve a carriage house or something.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, okay. And I think, you know, I mean, I'm sure you'll do it, but... We had some of these conversations when we were doing the new nonconforming sections of the recodification a couple of years ago. So there may be some language that's already applying citywide that might help here.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. And just on the short term rentals, I believe we updated that so that you can only do a maximum of 90 days a year anyway. So that might address parts of that question, at least.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no, that would make sense, because my inquisition would still fall under a 90-day limit, but maybe they can make enough money in 90 days that it's worth it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I just, you know, just looking at these notes brought up some thoughts for me. My first thinking is along the Broadway border between Medford and Somerville. One thing I just think we, I mean, and obviously I think we'd get there once we have the drop zoning. We should make sure that we're preserving the PDDs that have already happened. So like there's this node at Winchester over to Alfred basically right near the ball square T logo, that long rectangular, that's I think the PDD2 or PDD3 that we've already proposed. And it brought up another question for me, which is, and it might be for Alicia, where are we with the joint Somerville-Medford-Broadway zone? And is that, do we want, is that gonna be a special zone? Do we think that might actually fall under one of our proposals for a corridor. I just can't remember where we landed there.
[Zac Bears]: Great, and Alicia, actually, maybe just before, also, we now have this application for the CAPI site.
[Zac Bears]: And so that's another one of those, it's that node right over at the supercollider intersection at Wellington.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And so that's going to be under the overlay district. That's what they're
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I just want to note, Like this is where I think the timeline that Vice President Collins has been talking about really comes in like we are doing stuff under the new zoning already because the new zoning is really three years old now because we started with the recodification. So we're now mapping over, and I think we should maybe look at Mystic Ave because I think we might have mapped over like the PDD one, and we need to look at that.
[Zac Bears]: So yeah, those two, that and the Walkling PDD, just making sure that we're... Not losing them. Yeah, it just speaks to how if we continue to... We'll just end up in a more complicated situation if we don't complete this project in a timely manner. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and if you guys want to, you might be able to answer it as well, but there's a catastrophic incident that results in the destruction and the need for the reconstruction of the building. You can build back to essentially the existing nonconformity that you had at the time, or rebuild the existing structure, the structure that existed before the catastrophe. In terms of a knockdown rebuild, that might be different, I don't know. What you guys think about that, like if someone was someone had a single family they tore it down they wanted to build a new single family in its place if we didn't have by right that might not be allowed.
[Zac Bears]: I just think it's important to talk about not necessarily change, but potential change. And there's a lot of countervailing factors here. Like I hear the argument of if it's going to be in most of the other places, why wouldn't you allow it here? But I think there's a countervailing argument of do you end up incentivizing, you know, very, very, very expensive single family homes that still don't conform to the existing nature of the neighborhood? I mean, we've seen it in some places, like there's, I know I point to it often, but there's the house next to the West Bedford Community Center that is just a wild structure. It's a really, it's a giant single family box that doesn't, you know, that you could house a lot more than one family unit inside of a structure that large. But I think it's important to talk about potential change. I agree like the transit is certainly impactful here. I think also noting that a lot of this zoning is really more like 60, 65 years old is important and a lot as with most of our neighborhoods, except for some of the newer single family subdivisions. most of these structures existed before the zoning even existed. And that's just something to think about as well. But yeah, I mean, I'm not, I've been personally when I look at this neighborhood really going back and forth between the idea of like, should this be an R3? Should this be a UR1? In my head, it goes back and forth a lot. So Certainly, I think your point, Councilor Callahan, about making sure that the people who have single family homes there now can continue to do with them if they want to stay with them, in them, what they want is important. And I think there's an entire other side of this, which is allowing this, which is not allowed now, might enable someone to stay in the neighborhood because they can add a second unit to the house. That can help them, you know, maybe they don't need the whole house as they age in place, you can add a second unit, you can rent that to someone that rental income subsidizes your fixed income retirement and I think like really thinking about this in all the different ways that the property owner might make a decision that is important to think about too, because I don't think it's, and I'm not saying you're saying this, but I don't think it's as simple as saying, oh, we're going from this SF2 to this UR1, and that's a major change. I think it's saying, A, the existing zoning really doesn't entirely reflect what is there. It certainly doesn't reflect the modern transit conditions or things that have happened in the intervening period. And some of these zones, and I think to Judith's point, maybe this is where you go the other direction with it, are allowing a lot more options, giving the people who live there now a lot more options than they may otherwise have. Part of the challenge of this whole thing is we can't control either collectively or individually or as a neighborhood what people want to do with their private property, right? And that's, I think, where we run into you know, we've heard it time and again, we heard it on Monday night. Why didn't the city vet the people who applied for the methadone clinic? And it's private property, a private provider and a private property. The city doesn't have any, the city can only equally enforce the rules and laws that exist and regulations and the private entities that own the land or own the structures or wanna do something in those structures. they get to make the choices they get to make because that's that's our system. I could have a lot of long ideological conversations about why I think maybe we should look at some changes there but that's not where we're at and the state laws never going to allow us to that applicants by the specific categories of what we think is a community benefit for you know who's a good private actor who's a bad private actor right it's not something that I think the state or federal government is going to let us do and I don't think it's something that we're looking at here so it's a compliment long story short I'm just talking for a while we've been here a long time and I should probably just stop but it's a long It's a really complicated set of conditions that we're trying to set a balance with across all of this. And yeah, I agree this neighborhood has a there's potential impact for this neighborhood. But I think there's also you know, they're going to see the property values are going to increase their significantly because having a single family home that proximate to high frequency transit is going to raise assessments and that could also push people out or push people to sell. So by allowing more options that might enable someone to stay in the neighborhood they want to stay in. So I think it's, you know, there's so many ways that each individual property owner, um, or resident is making the choices that they need to make and the way that the rules and laws impact them that I just want to try to be considerate of all of the potential plethora of choices that people might make as they try to live in what I completely agree with you is a really difficult circumstance of the economics of housing in Medford and in Boston.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thanks Vice President Collins and thanks Janie. I think to your point, One of the things, I'm gonna hit a couple topics. One of the things was we heard from Tufts. I'm even gonna back up a little bit more. We've been talking a lot about the Salem Street zoning changes recently. We had a Q&A session with some folks on Monday. And one of the things that we see now is that the way that the current zoning is structured, it allows very different dimensional requirements based on use. And if I'm correct, and I'm seeing some nods, Tufts justified some of their structure construction based on like what the underlying zoning would allow. And if I'm correct, that's because the current existing city zoning for something like a dormitory was falling under the other principle uses use which allowed very high heights. I think that's something we really want to fix. So, and that's something we're trying to fix citywide, so that we can't have Tufts as an institution falling back on I guess the best word I can use for it is strange or outdated or just broken zoning to justify what they did. Because that's the zoning now and was the zoning that they applied under, that was one of the reasons they were able to use that as a legal justification for what they built. To build on what Vice President Collins was saying, one of the things we want to do is put in institutional zoning for Tufts, and that's something we've been talking about. And part of this project that gets a little bit difficult is there's the larger neighborhood of like Hillside, right? And a big chunk of it is the residential stuff that we're talking about right now, but it also incorporates the mixed uses along Boston Avenue and it incorporates this institution Tufts. And likely what we would see is three different zoning types or maybe a mix, even a little bit more of zoning types in the neighborhood, but specifically designed towards your point of trying to control for these questions. And if you ask me, certainly one of the things that residents were who had been a little confused on Salem Street were I think more encouraged by was noting like right now the zoning because of how it's structured, you can build a 15 story hotel on Salem Street. nobody wants a 15-story hotel on Salem Street, and the new zoning we're proposing would make that impossible. And I think that's the kind of some of, it's an example of the changes that we're talking about when it comes to an institutional zone for Tufts. And also on Salem Street, we've built in some step backs and setback requirements to try to maintain light. I think when we're looking at the Boston Avenue corridor and its topographical arrangement, being above the residential neighborhood below, we'd want to factor in neighborhood specific elements to whatever's going on to Boston Ave to also address questions like that. So we're probably not going to talk about those specific zones and changes as part of this proposal, because this proposal is really about the residential district. But I'm thinking about it. I think we're all thinking about it. I'm seeing nods from the consultants and planning staff that they're thinking about it because we don't want, the whole point of this is to get zoning that can't be, that you don't have people running through loopholes to build things that we don't think have community benefit the way that we want them to be done. And I'll just leave it at that. But we're definitely talking and thinking about it. I think some of the questions you're asking are about probably around the Boston Avenue corridor and then also an institutional district for Tufts. And it's definitely going to be priority for me as a Councilor that we fix these broken elements of our zoning to avoid outcomes like what we saw earlier last week. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: It might just be a question that we come back to when we talk about parking. Does the states kind of singling out of a single family and giving it some preferential status? Could a three-unit building have a three parking space limit, but a single family in the same district have Could you treat the units differently? And I don't know if you'd have the answer to that now or if it's something we'd have to think about for, but can you treat a unit in a single family different from a unit in a three family when it comes to parking if it's in the same district?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think, try to be as clear as possible. zoning and the zoning that we're looking at is one prong of different strategies that this council has proposed to address the displacement crisis and the high cost of housing. The high cost of housing is a regional problem. Medford, I think, through this zoning and through other things that we are hoping to enact, be doing more than its part and serving as a model for other communities inside 95 and 495 to step up their act and address the fact that we need tens if not hundreds of thousands of new housing units. One of the big things that's driving in a there's just demand people want to live here because people want to live in Boston because people like to live here people want to live in Medford because they like Medford. That's what we hear from people who live here it's what we hear from people who lived here and couldn't afford to live here anymore. And it's what we hear from people who want to move here who didn't live here. The way that this zoning helps the affordable housing question is threefold. One, One of the big mismatches we have is that our housing stock is not aligned to modern housing household size. So household size has been declining. Medford used to have more people than it does now, with actually fewer housing units than it does now, but that's because a lot of people were living in intergenerational households or had parents with lots of kids, so you had four or five people living in a home. You now have one, two or three people living in homes that you used to have four or five or six people living in. So one thing that the zoning is going to try to do is to allow smaller units so that these smaller households can live in them. Historically converting larger single family homes into as a historical conversion program, we propose to allow two units to try to maintain historical structures to allow people to age in place by putting another unit in their homes. Another piece that this zoning is going to try to address is what's called the missing middle of housing. So there's a lot of single family and some two family. And then what we've seen in Medford is a lot of multi, you know, 100, 200, 300, 400 unit apartment buildings. What we haven't seen a lot of is three, four, five, six, seven, eight unit apartment buildings. And just by having structures more in that range, you know, they tend to be units are a little bit smaller, it's more economical to have more units on a single parcel of land. So that's kind of trying to bring back what people call this small a affordable housing which is or naturally affordable housing, which is, you know, housing that is more affordable but it's still quote unquote market rate. The two pieces of this that personally I think are incredibly important, and also very difficult given the state and federal legal environment are the subsidized affordable units that we get developers to include in projects that's inclusionary zoning generally is what it's called. And then there is of course social housing public housing subsidized housing which is something that this country in the state has not invested in significantly and is actually most likely the main solution in the long run to having significant mixed income housing and reducing the average price of housing. We treat housing as a commodity we treat housing as an investment. We're seeing the impacts of that especially in places where supply is limited and demand is very high Medford can only do so much to address that. Part of what we're going to look at I know Councilman talked about TDM. I think we also want to look at some of the other affordable housing approaches, and we're hoping to fund what is called a nexus study, which is what is would be required for us to increase our inclusionary zoning. that would be increasing that. Requirements which would be increasing that arm of the proposal where we can have, um and require more affordable housing from people who are building market rate housing so that there's a bit more of a mixed income approach there. Um and something I'm hoping that we'll be able to talk about as we move through this process over the next five months is, uh. I'm interested to see if we think we need a nexus study to maybe adjust some of the thresholds and the inclusionary that we have now versus going whole hog and like completely redoing it or talking about going up to 20%. But is there something we could do on the low end around in this mixed in this missing middle area or encouraging some of the structure? I think one thing we want to avoid in the Cambridge seemed really intentional about trying to avoid is having people build buildings that are one unit below the minimum requirement for inclusion areas they don't have to do inclusionary and I think that's just something that we want to try to address to so I tried to be simple it's a complicated issue, but really. by and large, we're trying to figure out how to get more naturally affordable housing within the market rate structures. We're trying to get more subsidized affordable housing through inclusionary zoning. And, you know, we have been able to get a little bit more of the social housing, public housing model through the Medford Housing Authority, their redevelopment, both of the Riverside Avenue building and now Wackling Court. But for that to really be transformative, we're talking about federal money, and or a major state program or the state allowing municipalities to use their pride, you know, their beneficial bond rates to, you know, talking about really transformative laws that don't seem to be on the table right now. And at the state level, they don't seem to be on the table because the Honestly big housing has a struggle hold over a lot of the policy in the state, and then the federal level. The Republican Party does not seem particularly interested in using the government to help people. So, certainly not around housing. And Democrats have failed there for a very long time. The past 50 years of federal housing policy is pretty disgraceful from both parties. So it's a long answer, but those are the ways that we're trying to make sure that this zoning policy is focused on affordability.
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead. I just can't say how vehemently I disagree with that. I just answered about 10 ways that we think it does help affordable housing, both small A and big A, and public and social housing. I'd love the federal government to invest $2 trillion in building 4 million social housing units. I'd love the state to allow the city of Menford to take out bonds to build social housing. Given the laws and the conditions that we have now, that's not going to happen, but these proposals absolutely try to make the housing that we can build here now more affordable.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just want to be equally as clear. This absolutely does help with affordable housing, increasing missing middle housing helps because we have more units at a more reasonable price point for people to live in increasing inclusionary zoning literally increases the number of affordable units and developments. And if we're not making this, you know, if this isn't, if to say no to those facts is not a political approach, I deeply look forward to the support of all of my fellow colleagues on the rental registry, on rent stabilization, on using city resources to help construct affordable housing units, and a number of other policies that have been brought before this council that have been massively politicized for other political gain to support the interests of, quite frankly, people who own lots of property and rent lots of units in the city. So if this isn't about politics, I can't wait for the unanimous support of this council for policies that will stop the displacement of residents in the city.
[Zac Bears]: That's my point. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Just about sure, do you recall the roll call vote count on the home rule petition to update the linkage fee ordinances, or I think it was 6-1?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: We can build an affordable housing trust all we want, and we can fund it by asking the people who are developing large projects in the city to pay linkage fees, or we could have an affordable housing trust that has no money in it, so no affordable housing gets built.
[Zac Bears]: Third regular meeting, Medford City Council, February 11, 2025, is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. So President Adkins, please rise and salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. 25022 offered by Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Tseng, and President Bears. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council acknowledge and celebrate Black History Month. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further comments by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there anyone from the public who'd like to speak on this resolution? Seeing none, just as a co-sponsor, I want to thank my colleagues for putting this on the agenda. Thank the city for continuing to stand up for the values that we hold of diversity, equity, and inclusion and representing everyone here. I want to thank both of my fellow Councilors for lifting up voices of folks who are speaking out against what's happening right now and lifting up the nuance of what good policy work to address a history of racial injustice looks like in this country. And I think, you know, something we can all remember and it's important for us to remember is the radicalism of the civil rights leaders who ended 100 years of functionally slavery and oppression from the end of the Civil War through the 1960s. And we often hear sanitized and sparkled up quotes, but I think especially at this moment, a quote from Dr. King from his speech, remaining awake for a great revolution speaks to this moment that we're in as a country. Let nobody give you the impression that the problem of racial injustice will work itself out. Let nobody give you the impression that only time will solve the problem. That is a myth and it is a myth because time is neutral. It can be used either constructively or destructively. And I'm absolutely convinced that the people of ill will in our nation, the extreme rightists, the forces committed to negative ends have used time much more effectively than the people of goodwill. And sadly, I think we're seeing that right now. Any further discussion? Seeing none on the motion, Mr. Clerk, On the motion, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 25024 offered by Councilor Lazzaro, a resolution in remembrance of Dan Dill. Dan Dill was a professor of chemistry at Boston University for 50 years, publishing 78 academic research papers with particular interest in, quote, making quantum aspects of the world accessible to general chemistry students, end quote. That quote is from his personal reflections on his career upon his retirement in 2023. Professor Dill was also an accomplished photographer, winning an award from Kodak in 2006. I encourage everyone to look at his website. His work is beautiful, www.dandillphotography.com. On December 4th, 2024, Professor Dill was walking his dog in a crosswalk across Mystic Valley Parkway near his home in West Medford. He was struck by a car and critically injured. Professor Dill passed away from his injuries on January 11th, 2025. His neighbors and friends, have banded together to lobby for changes to the traffic patterns and the greater traffic enforcement on that road, which is controlled by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation. Apologies. Be it hereby resolved that the Bedford City Council share our deepest condolences of Professor Dill's family and loved ones, express our hope that this senseless tragedy will not be in vain and will not be repeated. Be it further resolved that the City Council work with DCR and our state delegation to make improvements to the crosswalk where Professor Dill was killed. Council is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: And that's all, thank you. Thank you, Dr. Lazzaro. Councilor Kelly here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. I think just from a procedural perspective, if we wanted to divide the question between the two paragraphs and send the second paragraph to committee. That would be procedurally fine. I'm also in conversation with the Bike Commission and hoping to engage members of WOC-Mentford to have folks down to talk about the updates to the citywide Bicycle plan and also the general road safety needs. Um And maybe even moving towards adopting a vision zero policy. I think there's also the side of enforcement. I don't know if those should be one meeting or two meetings. Um or one really big meeting, but I think if we refer this, and my preference would be if we would refer that to Committee of the Whole, my hope would be, my hope in working with the Bicycle Commission and other advocates would be to have that in Committee of the Whole. Right. Yes. Councilor Lazzaro, do you have anything? Are you amenable to turning the second paragraph of the resolution into a B paper and referring that to Committee of the Whole?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the B paper, which is the, oh. Oh, on Zoom. I will go to Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom. Mr. Castagnetti, name and address for the record. You have three minutes. Mister Cassidy? Someone here wants to talk? Okay, great. We'll try to come back to you. If you would like to speak on this resolution, please come to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Going to try Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom again. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You're on. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: We're going to go to Martha. Martha, name and address for the record, please. It's three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the public on this resolution? Seeing none, on the B paper, which is the final paragraph of the resolution, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. on the a paper by Council is our seconded by the paper seconded by Councilor Callahan a paper, also seconded by Councilor Callahan all those in favor. Opposed the motion passes. Thank you all. If we could all rise for a moment of silence. Thank you. Records, the records of the meeting of January 20th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Collins. Councilor Collins, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, all those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. Reports of committees, 24033 offered by Vice President Collins, Planning and Permitting Committee, January 29th, 2025. Councilor and Vice President Collins, how did you find the report?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve the report of committees, seconded by? So my councils are all those in favor of those motion passes 24354 and 25055 by Councilor let me resident services and public engagement committee January 29 2025 report to follow Councilor let me.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Council, I mean to approve seconded by Councilor Tseng all this in favor. Opposed, the motion passes. 24468, Governance Committee, February 4th, 2025. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24492 and 24493 offered by Councilor Lazzaro. Sorry for the typo. Public Health and Community Safety Committee, February 4th, 2025. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Um, I would move to approve on the motion to approve by councils are seconded by second by Councilor Collins. I was in favor of those motion passes. Hearings 24515 public hearing proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance chapter 94 Salem Street neighborhood corridor district hearing to be continued to March 2025 pending recommendations from the Community Development Board. This is a we had noticed a public hearing jointly with the Medford Community Development Board on the proposed Mystic Avenue corridor zoning. The Community Development Board took up its public hearing on this, opened it on January 22nd, but it's continuing it to a future meeting. We don't have the recommendations, but because it was noticed, we should open it tonight. And once it's open, there should be a motion to continue to the March 11th meeting. So I'm going to declare the hearing open and recognize Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: on the motion of Vice President Collins to continue the public hearing to the meeting of March 11th, 2025, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. So the affirmative, negative, public hearing is continued to March 11th. Petitions, presentations and similar papers, 25025, petition for a common victor's license, Kelly's Roast Beef. We have multiple papers on file and I'll turn it over to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Is the petitioner from Kelly's Roast Beef here either in person or on Zoom? Please raise your hand on Zoom if you're present from Kelly's Roast Beef. I'm not seeing any hands and I'm not seeing a table on the motion to table to our next regular meeting by Councilor Scarpelli seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor. Opposed. Motion passes. 25-026 petition for a common victor license King Boba tea. get this open. We also have our various files in front of us, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: A representative from King Boba Tea. Yes, please come to the podium.
[Zac Bears]: Could we just have your name and address for the record? Just state your name and give the address of the business.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, just the business address is fine.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Awesome. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve this petition, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm confirming that the negative of the motion passes. Good luck.
[Zac Bears]: I know that- Councilor Scarpelli. Just- You're all set. Oh, here you go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Fantastic. All right. Motions, orders and resolutions. Do you want to take up the under suspension and refer it out now or on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to suspend the rules to take paper under suspension, 25-027, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 25-027 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the Committee on Education and Culture schedule a meeting on February 25th, 2025 at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. The Committee will discuss the needs of the Recreation Department for the upcoming budget season. Committee will also discuss recreational programs involving our disabled community. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you. Thank you, Councilor Leming, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to refer to the Committee on Education and Culture for a meeting on February 25th, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 25-023, whereas this member of the Council has received, offered by Councilor Scarpelli, whereas this member of the Council has received multiple calls and emails requesting information regarding communication processes informing residents on the topic of zoning. And whereas residents have questions about where to locate meeting minutes and information dealing with the zoning process, and whereas the zoning process moving at a rapid pace and residents are questioning if there's a deadline to complete rezoning, be it resolved that the city council discuss the zoning process. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just want to give my perspective on the meeting last night and talk about procedurally the ideas that you're talking about. But I just wanted to say that I think It's a pretty general truism that when government does something right. Nobody complains, nobody talks about it and nobody gets any credit for it. And when government does something wrong, you have a lot of conversations about how it could have been better and how to make it better. And I think that's been my experience of this larger project so far. This is the fourth major change that we've done as part of the project, but it's the first one where we had residents so clearly and vociferously frustrated by elements of the process. And I think that we have done significant work to try to respond to that. And last night's meeting was a part of that. I'm going to leave it to Councilor Collins to talk about some of the other work that we're doing. I think very much along the lines of what you just mentioned Councilor Scarpelli around bullet points and breaking this down and getting nuggets out there. I know Councilor Collins has more on that. We were there till about 10 last night. you know, most folks had left at that point, but the, I know, you know, Councilor Scarpelli, Rep Donato and about maybe half to three quarters of the crowd had something they needed to do other than talk about zoning for three and a half hours. But we did manage to answer every question of everyone who stuck around. And I think, you know, certainly there are people who walked in with opinions and feelings who left with the same opinions and feelings about the zoning. But I think we also did do some significant work as Councilor Scarpelli noted to break down the information, provide a little bit more of a visual guide for folks who had concerns, address some of the statements and comments that had been made. I know one of the big ones was around, oh, 15 stories and some, you know, there's going to be these loopholes. And we actually really were able to dive down directly with a couple of folks who had really been concerned about that and show them that actually the thing that they're worried about is the zoning we have now and not the zoning that's being proposed. And that was really reassuring, I think. Maybe not on the totality of this. I'm not saying those people agree that this new proposal is the best thing in the world now. But on that specific issue, we were really able to address that. It was, I think, a productive evening for the most part. I've received a bunch of communications today thanking the Council and the Planning Department and Innes Associates for their work to put that together. And I think just moving to the procedural perspective, we've continued the public hearing to March 11th. If we don't have the recommendations from the Community Development Board, which is meeting the week before at March 5th, I certainly would support again, a continuance of the meeting further but that's how we would, we can't make a motion now to continue a public hearing that we just voted to continue to another date. So, if we want to make a motion to further push that meeting out. We would do that when we reopen the public hearing. And I just also. Personally want to note that I think a lot of residents we were very clear with residents last night who are highly involved and engaged about the process going forward. And personally, I would like to let the planning department, and as associates take all the comments and notes and questions. that were raised by residents last night, but also at prior meetings via email, via the input submission process. There were also some residents who were waiting on some questions to be answered, because I think that's going to inform the set of recommendations they make to the Community Development Board. And we really did say to folks last night, the next opportunity to engage on this is Community Development Board on March 5th. If the recommendations that associates proposes and planning development, sustainability propose address a lot of these concerns about uses that we're talking about, medical uses, short-term housing uses, some of the questions that people had and that the community development board feels comfortable making its recommendations to the council at the March 5th meeting, then we could consider that on March 11th. And if we feel that we should extend as Councilor Scarpelli noted, I think that would be the time to make that call. But of course, if the Community Development Board continues for another after March 5th and we don't have recommendations from them, I think we would continue. So I'm trying to speak to what you're saying Councilor Scarpelli in terms of the intent I agree with you if there's still a lot of if we have certainly if we don't have recommendations and community development board feels they need more time to spend on it. But I think we should continue further down the line. And, but I just want to be procedurally of note to say We told a lot of people last night how things were going to go, and I don't want to change that up on them personally right now. I think we can make that decision when we get to the decision point in March. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins, just one other note. We did accept a proposal and that proposal has a time frame on it. You know, we've had the timeline that we've been on since last spring because the proposal is essentially to complete the introduction of major changes by the end of June and the cleanup by September, and that's based on the proposal that the council and city accepted for this project.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So there's a B paper from Councilor Scarapelli. Okay. I'll go to Vice President Collins and then I'll read the B paper.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We have a motion, a B paper from Councilor Scarpelli to delay the Salem Street neighborhood quarter district zoning until more neighborhood meetings are held. Is that an accurate summary? Is there a second on that motion? Hearing no second, the B paper is not The B paper fails. On the A paper by Councilor Scarpelli, which was read out earlier, is there a motion on the A paper? Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to receive and place on file by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan, we'll move to public participation. If you'd like to speak on the paper, please raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium. seeing one on Zoom. Two on Zoom. We'll start with Cheryl. Cheryl, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Zachary. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Rich on Zoom. Rich, name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the A paper, on the motion receiving place on file. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. I just had one question. Apologies for having to leave early last regular meeting. McCormick Avenue was referred to committee of the whole. Is that correct? Okay. Thank you. Huh? Was it McCormick Ave? Just on those two parcels? So you're saying if I leave it all, everyone turns? You did a podcast of some kind? The McCormick Ave Beats? Okay. Well, thanks. Thanks for answering my question with more questions. Is there anything else anyone wants to take up from Unfinished Business? Do you want to clear out any unfinished business that's been sitting for a while? We do have a little extra time tonight. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: 23412 and 24352 and receive in place on file. I haven't seen any action on those in many months, and I haven't heard from any petitioners. It's been long beyond the 90 days, so they're free to reapply at any time. On the motion of Councilor Collins to take papers 23412 and 24352 from the table and receive in place on file, seconded by. seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. We'll go to general public participation. If there's anyone who'd like to participate on any matters before the Council, or otherwise, we can hear you now. You'll have three minutes. Please come to the podium in person or raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none. Is there a motion on the floor on the motion adjourned by Councilor Leming seconded by Councilor Callahan, all those in favor. Opposed motion passes meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: President.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, I said second. I can happily join the queue. I do have another comment on that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, I would also note that, um, there are a number of existing boards and commissions established by ordinance that have appointing authorities from multiple different bodies, the Affordable Housing Trust, I believe, well, not the Affordable Housing Trust, sorry, the CPC, and some others as well. So I think it's important to have that in there. But I did have one question, which is just as relates to by charter or ordinance. Could the Collins Center representative speak to whether by charter includes, if this were to pass, Other special acts that apply to the city of Menford, for example, the Traffic Commission is established by special act. I believe the Community Development Board is at least partly established by special act. Certainly the Office of Community Development is. So does by charter also include special acts previously applying to the city before the assumed approval of this charter?
[Zac Bears]: Well, it spawns many other questions. When will that be complete? And when will we review it? And is the council on the hook for drafting that? And does the Collins Center have a list of special acts that currently apply to the city?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, just one question. Assuming an extended absence, would the acting mayor I just think I would find it very difficult for any councillor to take on the role of acting mayor for months without, would that person receive the compensation of the mayor? It's just unclear to me how that would work, especially given that councillors have other jobs.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, I mean, I don't have a proposal. I'm just wondering how, how has this worked in other communities? You know, it seems like an acting mayor coming from the council would have to take a leave from their full time job to fulfill that role. How would they be compensated?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I guess just as written now, what would you say that this charter would compensate an acting mayor who is a member of the council?
[Zac Bears]: No. Uh, there's no response to that question. Okay, so yeah, I think we need to clarify what that is, if it's unclear in the language as written.
[Zac Bears]: All set. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Yeah, I have the same initial question. And I thought about it for a minute. And I think this is specifically for a case or example where the mayor is unable to declare themselves unable to serve. For example, if a mayor was in an accident and was unconscious, the council could make that vote. I don't think it's intended to sit at the, you know, if the council has a dispute over the mayor's competency and chooses to vote unanimously to remove the mayor, And the mayor is of not enough mind to write and sign a letter saying that they do have the competency to serve as mayor. I think it solves for that. Essentially, the council couldn't abuse the power because the mayor could immediately reinstate themselves. But in a situation where the mayor is unable to recuse themselves from the office, because of some sort of unexpected event that in that case, it would allow the council to take such a vote.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, as I read it, we would, this would add a budget meeting earlier than we have in the ordinance as it stands now. And it looks like it might make some small changes to the timelines that we're currently complying with. Chapter 43 or 44, Mass General, I can never remember which one, but we might just need to make some adjustments around the beginning and the end to make sure the dates are in line. But other than that, it doesn't really affect the heart of the budget ordinance around the budget meetings. Thank you, President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just had one, uh, follow up from our last meeting, which was, um, regarding the language around, including elections commission versus city clerk. Um, since we use the election commission model, um, but I also know that the mass general law that we adopted to move to the elections commission. Essentially says that the election commissions culture of the function of the city clerk as it relates to election. And I was wondering if the Collins Center had had a chance to take a look at that and figure out how we should refer to our elections oversight body, the body that conducts elections here in Medford in the charter.
[Zac Bears]: Great, then I would make a motion to replace the word City Clerk with Board of Election Commissioners throughout Article 7.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, the other option would just be to request from the Secretary of the Commonwealth a map that adds an additional precinct within each ward. We had a proposal that kept us at eight wards, but added a third precinct in each ward. So that would just be another way to do it.
[Zac Bears]: I just moved to refer the articles discussed tonight with the amendments voted on by the council to committee of the whole.
[Zac Bears]: Including the amendments.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. I just wanted to thank the Innist team and our planning development and sustainability office and you for your work continuing on this project and note also this is and I think we've noted at every time a continuation of the comprehensive plan process that established the citywide comprehensive plan in 2023 that had input from thousands of residents across dozens of events and meetings and other ways of getting information like surveys and interviews and a lot of other sessions that has gotten us to this point. I think something that we study in economics is the idea that you know, the quote unquote free market only works if everyone has perfect information, which means every single person in a market knows everything, every single piece of information that everyone else knows. And one of the first lessons that you learn in economics is that that's impossible and that that's why we have rules and regulations and laws and processes. And while I'm encouraged that we continue to iteratively try to improve those processes, there will never be perfect information where everyone knows exactly every piece of information and has heard everything they want to hear. And I just think it's important to acknowledge that as well. Really, again, you know, I think we've been actually incredibly responsive to hearing from residents. Some of these zoning proposals have not had people saying some of the things that are being said on Salem Street. And so we've adjusted the process to try to answer more questions and get more information out there. And I think that that is the work of government, especially a government like here in Medford where we are deeply under resourced, and we don't have the hundred person planning department in Somerville or the multi hundred person planning department in Cambridge or thousand person planning department of Boston. or even the revenue that we see in cities like Everett, or the government help that comes from the state and other communities around the Commonwealth. So we are working very diligently. I appreciate your leadership on that. And I was hoping maybe you could talk a little bit more about what you've been doing. I think the one piece of this kind of conversation that we haven't talked about is how you've been working with the city administration. And we have additional engagement from the communications team. And if you could talk a little bit more about what that's going to look like in terms of the information available to residents online.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. I think this map is incredibly insightful. I think this actually gives us the picture. It shows citywide. It shows where corridors and squares are, which are the places that are kind of in the gray. and showing the existing condition under the boundaries that are done by parcel. It's just a great visual. So I just want to thank you for putting this together. It really, I think, helps show what we're talking about. I have a couple of thoughts on a couple of these boundaries and where we should look at one and two. And I know we've had some discussions in previous meetings about this. It's not, I don't think, worth getting into right now, saying, like, look at this little square, and I think that should be different. One thing I noted, and it might be more of a comment for when we talk about dimensional, but I think something that also will be important to think about is what some design and performance standards look like for the third stories of the neighborhood, two and three districts where I think we've definitely, I think the two and a half story idea, I think is a really not a great one. And that really negatively impacts what a lot of property owners want to do with their properties in the city. But I also think that we can be artful about what a third story looks like so that we get some of the design benefits that I think we all like about just the visual of a three story building. Really, that's my comment at this point. I'm sure it'll come up a little later, but I think this visual really brings home exactly what we're talking about. And there's really only a couple of places here where I think maybe the district is one increment of density higher than I would think it should be. And a lot of that is in kind of the transitional, some of this middle of the city transitional area. So thank you for putting this together.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. And one other thing I think it might be worth noting on some of the specifically, let's take a look at the Wellington district just south of the UR1. There's a, you know, I think it might be worth labeling some of the larger condos as nine plus units, rather than condo conversion because I think there's just a few developments in here that are definitely more akin to a larger apartment building that like the condo conversion to three family and I think just a distinction there might be helpful to. But that's just my one other thought, taking a look at the map. I just noticed that I was like, well, yes, the Modera is Rivers Edge or nine plus, but the condos on the other side of the tracks are also multi story multi units on each floor.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I think similarly, and I already kind of brought it up, but I think some design standards to look at you know, what a three-story structure might look like where it's more like dormered out with a more sloped roof line or something like that would be helpful. And I think considering for the NR2, maybe something, I don't want to be so particular, like a 2.75, but you know, once we start getting into those, the half stories, about like the usable square footage area of the third story and it, you just, you know, I know having spoken to residents, you know, that sometimes the dormer just isn't, you know, they can't get it, you know, it's not worth doing at 2.5, you know, and I think there might be a way to have this conversation about design standards that complement the stories that could allow for a more useful partial third story, or even maybe a full third story in the NR2 district. And I guess just one other question, do you see any utility to potentially having like different processes, like a two and a half by right three with special permit, something like that? Or is that just kind of, to me, I think having a clear design review rather than like spot projecting by having special permits might be a better way to go about that, more consistent and easier for people to understand what we're proposing. But I'm just interested in your thoughts on that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no, and that makes sense to me. I think I'm really thinking about this NR2 when I'm thinking about, you know, if we want to activate the third story more, can we, you know, and like, I think going down the road of a design review board and mandatory design guidelines and everything is not what I'm suggesting, but I think You know, advisory is interesting. I don't really have as much of an issue with that because I don't think it actually, it doesn't add process. But I think maybe a mandatory something for, like for NR2, for the third story, like if you want more than two and a half, this is how you have to build it, might be something that is like a good nexus point of what we're talking about. And my only other question, remind me in the, what feels like years ago we called phase one changes that we passed I think last June. Did we pass the site plan review where we have a tiered site plan review? Or are we waiting on that? There was like going to be a kind of an administrative review.
[Zac Bears]: It just feels like it might be adjacent to this in some way.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, just to Councilor Callahan's point, I think for me, looking at the proposed districts over the residential types, that was kind of one of my also, I have a couple of questions about, again, some of those, that area, the west side of Forest Street, where there's an NR3 kind of square chunked off there, some of the boundaries of that large NR2 kind of in the middle. And I do think that there were some discussions that led to this proposal around the lot size and parking availability that I don't maybe necessarily agree with, but planning department folks and in the discussion saying, when you look at the Fulton Heights with the elevations and the topography and the windy roads and the small lot size and the significant on-street parking already there, that doesn't make sense. But maybe there's some spots up on the north end of Grove Street and out down that neighborhood where you have lots of off-street parking, large lot sizes, and proximity to transit that doesn't exist in some I'm essentially making an argument that I don't fully agree with, but I've been characterizing some other arguments that were made that it might be more, the capacity is there, even if it's not necessarily an existing condition. I would tend to think that I think that that district should probably be two districts and be one part NR1 and one part NR2. But I don't want to I will let the people who fully believe in that argument make that argument more robustly than I just did.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, I think I was the vice president.
[Zac Bears]: I defer to Councilors her belly.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate the clarification. Um, could we look at the proposed zoning districts and existing residential types map just to be put that up on the screen? Thank you. And yes, it is. The whole city. It's hard to see. I'm zooming in a little bit myself here. I think for me, the NR3 district, almost right in the center of the map, on the west side of Forest Street, it's a square. Well, yeah, I can't annotate, but essentially, there's this large NR2, there's an NR1, and then there's the NR3 between the highway and Forest Street that has a lot of the multifamily. The one on the other side of that, essentially, this bounding box here, I just think that given the existing condition, I would be able to proceed that as an NR2. And then I just had two questions about This square here, is that just a line that shouldn't be there? Or is that because of its proximity to the square district?
[Zac Bears]: And is that intended to be an NR3? And then here, this NR2, kind of on the backside, is that because that's like a subdivision that's all single family? Okay. Got it. Thank you. Sure, I was just talking about the NR3 district on the west side of Forest Street. The small square district that is, I think, intended to be an NR3 on the northern end of, just north of the Medford Square area. And then there's an NR2 district off of Spring Street. And that's because there's a subdivision there, a single family subdivision from, that's more recent than other construction in that area. It's where the old train tracks were. which I want to bring back, but sadly we can't. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, just to that comment, that is the square box that I was suggesting should be Not marked as an R3. I mean, I think we don't have defined neighborhood boundaries. One could argue that the Lawrence Estate starts at that intersection and goes to the intersection at Winthrop Street. We could have an argument about that for a year, and I'm sure everyone in the neighborhood would have a different opinion on it. But yeah, it seems to me that that bounding district between Governors Ave, Lawrence Road, and Forest Street, and what looks to be Hall and, oh, Street that I'm blanking on, that that should at least be more part of the NR2. And as Gaston noted, I think looking at the boundary line of that NR2 district and seeing if it should be moved further south. The NR1, NR2 boundary that's currently on Lawrence Road I think is certainly worth considering. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'm turning on the microphones, guys. Oh, I can't do them all at once. We did get a request that people try to speak into their microphones during roll call votes. So for that purpose, we will have the microphones available to everybody for at least the first roll call. Second regular meeting Medford City Council January 28 2025 Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. The records of the meeting of January 14th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Callahan. Councilor Callahan, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: All right, and you received that? Got it. Great.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Callahan to approve the records as amended, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. Reports of committees. 24510 offered by Council President Bears. This was on the school's HVAC Committee of the Whole. We voted on the loan order at the regular meeting following that. Is there a motion to approve? On the motion to approve by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. 24033 offered by Vice President Collins, Planning and Permanent Committee, January 15th, 2025. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Opposed motion passes to 5014. Offered by President Bears, Committee of the Whole, January 21st, 2025. This was our review of the CPC recommendations, Community Preservation Committee recommendations, which are on the agenda for tonight. Is there a motion to approve? On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24492 and 24493, offered by Councilor Callahan, Public Works and Facilities Committee, January 21st, 2025. report to follow. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. On the motion of Councilor Callahan to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24468 offered by Councilor Tseng. This is Governance Committee, January 22nd, 2025. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I'll motion of Councilor Tseng to approve seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. We do have one celebratory resolution by Councilor Tseng under suspension. Would you like to move to take that? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to take paper 25021 seconded by saying that by Councilor Leming all those in favor. Opposed motion passes 25021 offered by Councilor Tseng, be it resolved that the Medford City Council celebrate Lunar New Year and wish our Asian residents a happy and prosperous new year. Be it further resolved that the Medford City Council invite residents to Medford's Lunar New Year celebration on Saturday, February 1, from 10am to 1pm at the Medford Senior Center.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion on the resolution? Seeing none, Councilor, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes, on behalf of the Council, we wish you a happy Lunar New Year. On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. Motions, orders and resolutions 25-011 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Whereas we have received multiple phone calls and emails with the misunderstanding and confusion and fear of tax increases in their recent tax bill. And whereas the city did not educate or prepare residents in the overwhelming tax bill that administration set up immediate listening and education sessions for our residents. And whereas the need to support our most vulnerable members of the community, seniors, veterans, and disabled needing financial support that the city council request a more robust exemption option. And whereas the increased taxes have negatively affected homeowners. We as the city council be in the process of a homeowner exemption process. And whereas the increasing in our home assessments has surprisingly added to our residents tax bill, we share the abatement process with all residents that need to be educated in this process. And whereas our business community has been negatively affected by the tax increase, we asked the city to find financial relief and creative options that might be possible through grants and fees to alleviate financial hardships. Be it resolved that the city council discuss the concern, overwhelming concerns to our residents dealing with the recent tax bills. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And I will go in a minute to my fellow councilors. And I just wanted to thank you for a lot of what you just talked about. And mentioning some of the work that I've been doing. And I want to also lift up the assessor's office under assessor Costigan and our assistant assessor. I've been working with them before. And after the override on updating information, trying to get more information out, we got those valuations out. I agree, we can always do more. And I do wanna say that I have connected, thanks to a resident who sent over some FAQs from some other communities that were very helpful. I know that the assessor's office is working with the communications team to significantly improve some of the information on the assessing department website. That's making it a little more bite-sized and accessible. And I think also just on the abatements, and I'll look this up as other councilors speak. I just want to note that I believe you have to have your application for abatement in by Friday. I think it's technically February 1st, which is the deadline. So I will confirm that as other councilors speak, but definitely the information page and just a friendly amendment. I think maybe the administration finance committee might be the place to, if that's fine.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. All right. I will go to Councilor Leming, Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Callahan for brief comments. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming, and yes, thank you for putting that together. I did just want to also thank the Assessor's Office. I've been able to set up meetings with residents with the Assessors as well, and those have been helpful. And the abatement deadline is Monday, February 3rd. If you're mailing it in, it has to be postmarked by USPS by February 3rd, or otherwise received by the Assessor's Office for 30 p.m. on Monday, February 3rd. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins for that amendment. We can get back to that. I will go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Callahan. And yeah, sorry about the levels. I think we're all at school committee levels. So you're louder than John. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes, and it's a right now it's an amendment may not be a paper will get their Councilor Tseng, Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. And I just wanted to add my two cents, I think moving forward, the residential exemption, which we've discussed in the past is a really good step. And I also just wanna note that I think I agree with pretty much everything that everybody said here, and that while it can be true that we've come a decent way on trying to get information out, and certainly there's more accessible information that there has been before, that also when unforced errors happen, that doesn't breed confidence, especially among people who are concerned. And I think that we could have gone a long way here if a letter had gone out in water and sewer bills and tax bills and a link to resources that do exist that are on the website. And that didn't happen. And so like, I share the opinions of both of my colleagues to my right, that things are better than they have been before. but they're not good enough, and we could have done better and can continue to do better. So I will recognize Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. We keep having the same argument over and over again. And I think it's because some people in the city feel one way and some people in the city feel the other. And so, some people feel how you've represented Councilor Scarpelli, and I've heard from some of them, and some people feel how you feel, Councilor Tseng, and I've heard from them, and some people feel how some of my other councilors are represented tonight. There's a diversity of opinion in this community, and, you know, we can do our best to make the decisions that we feel represents the best interest of the city, and listen to folks, but we're not always gonna agree with everybody. In any case, you know, I can understand how everyone here feels that some of the language they didn't agree with, and some of the comments they didn't agree with, right? That's how we're all feeling, I think, right now. That's the work. So we have proposals before us. I appreciate what everyone has said. We do have a proposed amendment by Vice President Collins. Councilor Scarpelli, do you accept the amendment? That's a B paper, okay. So we'll take a B paper from Vice President Collins and then the A paper from Councilor Scarpelli. On the B paper by Vice President Collins, is there any further discussion? Council Vice President Collins. Great, I mean, we're gonna go to public participation next. So we'll go to public participation on this paper, the B paper and the A paper. We'll start at the podium. We do have a hand raised on Zoom. Everyone will have three minutes. So I'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Julio. I do encourage people also to express their happiness, but thank you for your comment. I'm trying to bring a little levity. We keep having big arguments here. I'm going to go to the Zoom. We have Matthew Page Lieberman on Zoom. Matthew, you have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your time and your comment. Any further comment on this paper in person or on Zoom? Mr. Castagnetti, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Cassinetti. Go to Ellen on Zoom. Ellen, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment on these papers. Seeing none, I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion, B paper, Vice President Khan, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. On the A paper of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Aye. Anyone else just me and Councilor Callahan on that one? All those opposed? I think I'm going to have to have a roll call on that.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, three in the permanent form the negative emotion fails. two four two five zero one two offered by Councilor Scarpelli a resolution requesting an update on the parking department be it resolved that the Medford City Council get an update on the status of the parking department be it further resolved that the council meet a new parking director at an upcoming meeting be it further resolved the council receive an update on the South Medford G parking program be it further resolved that because multiple residents have expressed displeasure with the appeals process the council request a meeting with the administration to research a more equitable and fair process Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments from members of the council? Seeing none, I just wanted to say that I also believe that we should have a meeting with the new director. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, recommend what? Sorry. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: I think I'd have to look back at the matrix we made. I could see an argument for all three, but I think actually the transportation duties that we transitioned over, this does make more sense to be in the planning and permitting context. Education and Culture Committee.
[Zac Bears]: Well, you could send it to Committee of the Whole, then we don't have to have an argument. But I just wanted to say that I do think meeting with a new director is a good idea. I think something, if amenable to folks, that I would like to talk about at the meeting is just, in general, how can residents advocate for access permit parking on their street in general? I know there's a lot of concerns residents have around maybe they do want to set it up, maybe they don't want to set it up, and that would be helpful. I do want to just say that on the fees, we do have reports and there have been communications that we've received and that are available to the public from the parking task force that reviewed the parking policies and established the G zone pilot, which then the parking department, I believe moved from pilot to permanent. And that, you know, there were fees in the city that haven't been updated in 45, 50 years. And I think to me, it is important for the city to maintain with the times fees. Also, on the flip side, we haven't done linkage fees in 40 years, right? So it's really a symptom of a larger problem where the city was not keeping track of its different user fees, different programs for a very long time. And now, yes, we see an increase that's coming in. But that's because the task force said, hey, we haven't done this in 50 years. And we're out of scope with comparable communities in a lot of these things. I'm not saying they got everything right. I'm not saying there's not stuff that's open for discussion, but that's just something that I think is valuable. And I know that we, I'm hoping we will finally receive the report from all the other departments about their fees that haven't been updated in a long time and how we're going to address that. I just wanted to note also that while we can have the parking director and talk about this with the parking department, the traffic commission makes these choices. We can make recommendations to the traffic commission, but we cannot overrule the traffic commission. The traffic commission is established by a 1957 special act of the state legislature and is the final decision maker. I don't know what the policies of our current parking director are. I know the past parking director said that they do not serve on the traffic commission and they did not want to because they did not feel that they should be making the rules that they enforce. I don't know if that's a different viewpoint. I know that parking traffic and parking directors and other communities do serve on their traffic commissions. Also, I believe in Somerville a Councilor serves on that commission. So, just throwing it out there. If anyone wants to look up that special act, um, that's what is that almost 70 years since we've updated the structure of the traffic commission. And I have heard from, you know, members of the public that maybe that's worth taking a look at as well. Um, so just wanted to put those, that information out there. I'll go to councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng, as amended by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion passes. 25015 resolution to make city council meetings more business friendly, whereas businesses come before the council to request approval for storefronts, and whereas small business storefronts and our quarter squares and business districts foster a sense of community that residents desire. I'm a little loud here. allow our residents to shop small and local and bring needed revenue to the city and whereas we want business owners to understand believe Medford is friendly to small businesses be resolved that the city council's regular meeting agendas here the petitions from businesses prior to resolutions made by members of the council be it further resolved that rule 19 be amended as follows. The following a petition shall be reserved for only matters requiring council action for law including not limited to special permits grants location sign variances and common picture licenses. only petitions filed meeting this criteria shall be assigned a council paper number such hearings and petitions shall be heard immediately after the reading of council reports and before orders and resolutions and motions sponsored by council members i will entertain this but i want to remind councillors that there isn't the order of business currently does this and the only reason that that isn't happening is because we vote on motions to suspend the order of business and that even if we update the rules a majority vote of this body can suspend the regular order of business and move us beyond this. So I don't personally believe that a rule change is necessary. With that, I don't believe this is out of order, but I just don't believe that any rule change would change the practice and that that is on us as individuals acting collectively to change the practice and just make sure that we do not suspend the rules before taking these. I will go to Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Leming. Sorry. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. One second. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Just a note, Rule 12 is the order of business. It's the roll call, salute the flag, and then there is announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records, and this is intended to serve as a consent agenda analog. Refer to committee for further discussion is in there. because we shouldn't talk about it when it's in that section. So if people do submit something for that section, it's about sending that to the committee for the discussion. So if folks want to discuss it in the regular meeting, they should be clear that should go in motions, orders, and resolutions. And then we can still refer it out, but the intent of that was to clarify when we're having a debate on something significant versus when we are trying to say, we just want to introduce a topic because we can't talk in committee. if a paper is not first introduced in the council, but we want to reserve that discussion for committee. So again, it is more about councilor intent and behavior than it is about the order of business. And then following that consent agenda, we have hearings, presentations of petitions and similar papers, then motions, orders and resolutions, then communications and reports from the mayor, city officers and employees. Um, so if we, uh, you know, if we were to just follow that, um, and the intent behind the agenda and the rules, we would, we would avoid these situations. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah. And I think, you know, the intent here is I'm interpreting it and I'll let everybody who wants to speak interpret it as well as. let's get the things we know we're all gonna agree on out of the way before we start talking about the things we're not gonna agree on. And that was the intent of forming the consent agenda in the first place in 2022. We don't call it that, but it's that first section announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. Those would be mixed in with motions, orders, and resolutions. You'd have reports and records at the end of the meeting rather than at the beginning of the meeting. So you have these things that were non, essentially non-controversial that were pro forma, just actions that the council needs to take. I mean, we added to that in January of last year, this refer to committee for further discussion, because we had some questions about, are we taking a final action on something? And no, the answer is we're just trying to start the process, the legislative process. So I think I'm interested to hear what you have, Councilor Scarpelli, as the Subcommittee on Licensing, Permitting, and Signs Chair. And I know that in Somerville and some other communities they will have, and I think we're moving in this direction on some things where they do a lot of work in the committee, and then it comes to the regular meeting and it is just kind of signed off on by the larger group and. And then the petitioner doesn't have to be here necessarily. They've been heard, questions have been asked by that subcommittee or committee. And we also could potentially look at, I think, a revision to the order of business to look at moving petitions that have come out of that subcommittee to the more consent agenda could be something that we look at too, even though they are pretty early on. I appreciate the intent of my fellow Councilors and Councilor Scarpelli on this matter and Councilor Leming and Lazzaro and I will go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Sounds like we might have a rule amendment. So that would be the governance committee.
[Zac Bears]: I'll go to Councilor Callahan, and then Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: I will say I am urging that. I do personally feel that's probably more the role of the chair than the rules, but that's just my opinion. Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: The motion to refer this paper to the governance committee, seconded by Councilor Callahan. We'll go to public participation. We'll start at the podium, name and address for the record. And you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We'll go to Zoom, back to Paige Lieberman. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. On the motion to refer to Governance Committee by Councilor Leming seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. 25-016 offered by President Bears, be it resolved by the Menford City Council that the City Council President, City Council Vice President, and City Clerk conduct a process to recruit a new City Messenger and make a recommendation of a candidate for City Messenger for a final vote by the City Council. I think this is a relatively self-explanatory resolution. Happy to answer any questions if anyone has any. On the motion approved by Councilor Tseng, I will go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And this is our first appointment of a city messenger in at least for four decades, I would say close to maybe three.
[Zac Bears]: So, um, yeah. And, um, if folks haven't seen it, uh, there is a little Larry, um, memorial in the clerk's office. Um, I got Larry's corner going Larry's corner, um, over by the bulletin board. Uh, it was touching to see. Um, and we have had some discussions about some of the topics that you've talked about and what the role of messenger can look like. Um, going forward. So we will through the clerk, the vice president, I will keep the council updated on on how we move through that process. If that is sufficient. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Tseng seconded by Councilors are to approve all those in favor. Opposed motion passes. 2 5017 review of a meeting law complaint of a meeting law complaint. Acknowledged receipt of open meeting law complaint from Laura Ortiz against the City Council. Did it January 11th 2025 acknowledge and review complaint and discuss response. Votes may be taken. We do have the open meeting law complaint form here. This is from Laura Ortiz of Lowell, Massachusetts, who has made an open meeting law complaint that is in very, very small text, and I will not be reading the whole thing, but it is essentially an argument that the council has violated the open meeting law by independently councilor signing onto a letter. There is I've been working with council and there is a response drafted. This is to the Open Meeting Division at the Office of the Attorney General. It says, just because it's long, I will sit down to make sure I can read the whole thing on my computer. This firm represents the this is from Janelle Austin KP law. It says this firm represents the city of Medford the city council, and the receipt of an open law complaint filed by Miss Laura Ortiz dated January 11 2025 which was received by the council that same day. The complaint alleges that the council violated open meeting while when five members of the council individually signed a digitally circulated letter. concerning recent changes to Massachusetts law. This is essentially the summary on January 20, 2025. That's this meeting, the city council met at a properly posted meeting and open session, which we're doing right now to discuss the complaint. The council has carefully reviewed the allegations contained in the complaint following such discussion has authorized this response on its behalf in accordance with general law chapter 30 a section 23. and 940 of the Massachusetts regulations subsection 29.05 subsection five, which is based on the information provided. The complaint alleges that a quorum deliberated outside of a properly posted meeting as set forth. However, the council respectfully submits that no openly meeting law violation has occurred. specifically while five individual members of the council did voluntarily and separately sign on to the letter in question individually. No deliberation occurred among or between the councillors whatsoever regarding this matter. Specifically, the five individual members of the council who signed on to the letter did so as individuals completely independently from one another in response to a mass circulated correspondence among public officials across the Commonwealth. There was no discussion, coordination, or communications regarding signing this letter between or among a quorum of the council at any time. As a result, the council respectfully submits that no open meeting law violation occurred. All right. There's more in the letter, but it's just a recitation of further facts and documentation outlining that summary. Is there any discussion by members of the council on this matter? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: The vote would be to acknowledge and review the complaint and accept the response as drafted by Council.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming, is there any further discussion? Seeing none, is there anyone in the chamber on Zoom who would like to speak to the matter?
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins, and I would note that We did receive communication that the person who filed this as a serial filer of complaints against officials across the Commonwealth. And it's just does this all the time and most very often they're frivolous and the determination is that no violation was held. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just impressed that you can read the text that small.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. That was my joke. I was making that joke. Please let me make my jokes. Thank you, Councilor Tseng and I appreciate that. On the motion of Vice President Collins is seconded by Councilor Leming to acknowledge the complaint and to adopt the response as drafted by council. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, having affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. 25014, we have the Community Preservation Committee appropriation requests. We did hear these and we heard from all the applicants last week. This is from the mayor. Dear President Bears members of the council on behalf of the Community Preservation Committee, I respectfully request and recommend your honorable body approve the following recommendations of the Community Preservation Committee requesting the appropriation of 526,000 to the Department of Public Works parks division for the place that tennis court resurfacing requesting the appropriation of $322,500 to for the facilities department for the city council chamber windows restoration project. Requesting the appropriation of $100,000 to Action for Boston Community Development for the Medford Movement Rental Assistance Program. Requesting the appropriation of $99,000 to the Unitarian Universalist Church for the Church Exterior Restoration Project. Requesting the appropriation of $400,000 to Shiloh Baptist Church to complete the Shiloh Baptist Church ADA Improvement Project. Requesting the appropriation of $85,000 to the Department of Public Works Segmentary Division for design phase two of the Oak Grove Cemetery Historic Buildings Restoration Project. request the appropriation of $250,000 to the Affordable Housing Trust as initial funding to conduct affordable housing tasks and requesting the appropriation of $98,285 from the CPA Open Space Reserve to the Recreation Department to complete the Condon Shell Field Lighting Project. As we know, public presentations were held Tuesday, January 21st to the Committee of the Whole meeting. The project will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund, the recommendation letters are attached and incorporated, and we have manager DuPont and chairperson Cameron in attendance as needed. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. I will go to Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Tseng. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to approve, seconded by, did you move? You made a motion? I'm sorry. Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, having affirmative and negative, the motion passes. 25018 offered by Mayor Buenaventura Kern, Capital Stabilization Fund rescission and appropriation request. Dear President Bears, oh, Gaston, were you wanting to talk on CPC? I'm so sorry. I can come back to you right now if folks are okay with that. Was it about the chambers? The tennis courts. We'll take you. I really apologize. I'm sorry. Gaston, name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: I'll be brief and then I'll go to Councilor Callaghan. We did have Commissioner McGivern discuss this and In terms of just repairing the cracks, that was not recommended because it would impact the ability of the service to perform the function that it's functioning. Like, even if you seal the cracks, it might affect how the tennis ball bounces, essentially. And also, he indicated that the cracks are an indication that the underlying base foundation is in question, and that's why they believe they need to replace it. essentially re certain not just put new stuff over but also fix the the base under the surface. But I'll go to Councilor Callahan if you have a more distinct memory than I do.
[Zac Bears]: And the rec department is largely fee funded, except for the salaries. It's pretty much... It's self-sustaining.
[Zac Bears]: And I think it's, just to further on that, it's kind of one of those situations where the fees do fund something in the city. the capital improvements and not like it's not the fee money goes to the fund to keep the thing maintained, but as the fee money goes to run the program. So in a sense, you know, if you were to shift the money to the other thing, we'd have to pay for something one way or the other, I think, but Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and my apologies for moving through the vote. Thanks. All right, a capital stabilization fund rescission and appropriation request from the mayor dear President Bears members of the council I respect the request and recommend that your honor body rescind the capital stabilization fund appropriation, and the amount of 322,500 for the window restoration in the chambers. That was approved November 12. None of the appropriated funds have been spent yet, and a request to appropriate the CPA funds has been submitted, and we just approved it. And this was, I think, as we discussed last week, the CPA funds were a better use than the stabilization funds because of the restricted purposes of CPA funds versus the general purposes of the stabilization fund. And that Manager DuPont and Director Riggi indicated there'd be potentially a one week delay in the procurement process. So it's not super significant in terms of the timeline. The second request is to appropriate $197,012.95 for facilities which include the following projects. window dressings in the City Hall chambers, emergency boiler repairs in City Hall, flooring replacement in the Veterans Office and Elections Office, City Hall lock changes, replacement of backflow preventers at Engine 3, Fire Engine 3, new shades and blinds, Fire Station Engine 3, bathroom renovations and adjacent repairs at Engine 4, window trims at Engine 4 and window trims at Engine 6. The total is $197,012.95. With the rescission, any appropriation requires two-thirds majority vote, and with the rescission and the appropriation, the balance of the capital stabilization fund would actually increase from $3,405,000 to $3,530,481. That is the proposal before us. And I will go to members of the council if they have any questions. We do have Director Riggi here on Zoom. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Is there any further questions by members of the council? Excuse me. Seeing none, Director Riggi, would you like to say anything at this time? Just if there's any context you wanna provide? Don't unmute Matt. I clicked Matt.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Riggi, you have the floor.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Riggi. I appreciate you speaking on this and your work on these projects. On the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative and the negative, the motion passes. I apologize to my colleagues, but I need to step out early. Vice President Collins, if you could take the chair. And I appreciate my colleagues for their deference. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, I missed that. Thank you chair saying, um, I want to, uh, thank my colleagues. Thank you for putting together these meetings. Thank the members of the charter study committee, the mayor and the Collins center for their work up to this point. Um, and especially for those who are here tonight, as well as member of the public members of the public who are interested in this topic. Um, we are, And I think I've said this a few times now, we're working on all three of the big three that Councilor Knight once told me the city council is responsible for this term. We've passed a budget ordinance and a budget, and we have another budget coming up. Obviously we are in, I think meeting 18 or 19 of the term of the planning and permitting committee regarding zoning updates. And we are here tonight on the charter. which is the foundational document for our community. And we are looking at the first update in nearly 40 years and bringing us into, I would say, the modern age of city charters based on what we're looking at here and before us with the proposal from the Charter Study Committee revised by the mayor. And by and large, I think this proposal is a really great proposal, a charter that the people can understand and something that I wholeheartedly support as a whole. Last week I submitted to the council and shared with the public very openly a series of amendments that I would like to propose for discussion tonight by this committee. And I am hopeful for the consideration and moving forward on them. But I also just want to note that part of the reason that I went about this the way that I did is that there have been fantastic discussions from multiple people all over the Internet talking about what they would like to see, what they wouldn't like to see, bringing forward new ideas that have added to my knowledge base and that I am going to bring to the discussions that we have tonight. As regards to the first article and the sections within it, I want to thank the study committee for putting together a thoughtful preamble. I really think it represents what our community is, as well as its rich history, as it says right in here, our city's rich history and where we want to go and what the purpose of a charter is. As regards to the rest of the article one and sections, I did have a couple of minor proposals around the definitions, but they do relate to the proposal around the composition of the city council. So I will not make any motions or discuss them at this time, but we'll discuss them when that topic comes up for the chair. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to also, I was remiss to not thank the Collins Center. They worked up a great comparison document that we received the other, I think yesterday or the day before, comparing what's in the current charter to the proposal. So I just wanted to thank the team at the Collins Center for putting that together. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I see President Bears. You can go to Councilor Scarpelli. Oh, OK. George, give me a second. Yeah, no problem. Great.
[Zac Bears]: see you president bears thank you Councilor Tseng um just a note uh we're going to come back to 2-1 and 2-4 okay um i just yeah and i appreciated the question i just want to make sure we stay on course have the discussion on those um i have as regards to section 2 or article 2 I have thoughts on 2-5, 2-7, 2-9, 2-10, and then I also have a thought on 9-6 and moving into section two. So.
[Zac Bears]: I think the question is though, not in the case of an investigation or inquiry, I regularly communicate with the city assessor to set up a meeting with the resident to talk about their assessment. This would seem to prohibit me from doing that. Is that true?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah. And I think, um, obviously subject if you want to take a look at it and come back, but it would seem to me that if the intent is to make clear that the council cannot order a city employee to do anything, um, maybe just eliminating everything between the comma after section two, six and the word neither. So eliminating the city council shall contact the officers and employees serving under the mayor solely through the mayor and because then it would just read, except for the purpose of inquiries and investigations pursuant to section two, six, neither the city council nor any member of the city council shall give orders or directions to any officer or employee, either publicly or privately. I don't know if that makes sense to folks.
[Zac Bears]: I'll make a motion to make that amendment pending further discussion and information from the representatives from the Collins Center.
[Zac Bears]: Or yeah, I can work on emailing it. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, sorry. It would remove the sentence, the city council shall contact the officers and employees serving under the mayor solely through the mayor and but maintains the intent that we could not give orders or directions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just had one one item here under section two five subsection one that the regular meetings of the city council be held at a time and place fixed by ordinance. I would change that to the city council rules. Okay. Is that a motion? That that would be a motion, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: And the clerk already has that language in the document I sent over. Great.
[Zac Bears]: Through the chair. Yeah, the city council can change the rules of the city council by majority vote. But it doesn't require multiple readings.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng, um, regarding this section, um, I had, well, one comment, which this is the first item that incorporates one of the charter amendments passed in the last term, six to one, subsection B. In the initial draft, I would propose that it be subsection C, but subject to appropriation, the council being able to have additional support positions. That was something we advocated for in the last term, and I appreciate its inclusion in this draft. My main questions and my proposal here is one, the city messenger position that wasn't included. So I proposed that it be included. And so that would be a new subsection B. And then I also noted that section A didn't include a residency requirement for the city clerk. I put a draft together that put it back in, but I'm interested to hear if that was not included purposefully or if there's another provision of Massachusetts general law that would cover residency or just the reason that that was not mentioned as regards to the city clerk. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Withdraw my motion related to residency for the city clerk.
[Zac Bears]: I haven't made a motion. That, once I submit it, I will not move.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I would move to adopt the amendment to include the city messenger and the charter and then just renumerate, subsection B would become subsection C, subsection D would be, C would become D, and the city messenger section would be subsection B, and that language is also in the document.
[Zac Bears]: I'd be happy to try and make my motion with Councilor Scarpelli, so I just take one vote.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think it is there, and I think it's two meetings away.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you Chair Tsang. This is the second of the three charter amendments passed in 2020. three, I believe. And this regards the Council confirming the appointments of the mayor. The initial amendment that we had put forward that wasn't advanced to the legislature at the time by the mayor would have had us affirmatively approving all appointments unless otherwise noted by mass general law by majority vote. This has us having to take a specific motion to reject an appointment by a two thirds vote. I do know that there were some concerns by the mayor about having to send all of the appointments to the council and get affirmative. votes, I did read through the study committee report and found that that was relatively common. But in the spirit of compromise, I can understand that concern. And I would just propose changing the threshold from a two-thirds vote to a majority vote, which also seems to be very common across most communities. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: So I think my opinions, I don't disagree if I make sure I don't disagree with you. So this, the way it's written without my amendment is the council would need two thirds to reject. So we wouldn't see everybody. that we would only appointments would be made and then we would have 30 days to say we don't want that appointment and then it will require two thirds to reject that appointment. So it's not saying they would come before us. I actually agree. I support. Yeah, I would support if someone else wanted to move in that direction more. affirmative process where all of the appointments come before us. But in the absence of that, I don't think it should require two-thirds for rejection. I think it should require just a simple majority to reject an appointment. I apologize. I misunderstood.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just wanted to... I completely agree with your sentiment on that. I want us to be able to have more authority as regards appointments.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Some of them would pertain if there was a change in the proposed composition. So I'll hold those, but we did receive a communication and I noted as well from the chair of the elections commission that the references to the city clerk in here should be references to the elections commission. And so I would move to make those changes, but I'm also just want to see if that is an issue or if the comment center representatives have any notes on that. If it should stay as city clerk because we technically adopted a law that said the Elections Commission shall act as city clerk and therefore there are Massachusetts general laws that reference the clerk and not the commission. But that seems kind of convoluted.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. Yeah. I just think we did hear that note that, I mean, we have the elections commission model. We adopted the mass general law provision. I can't remember what it is now, a couple of years ago. So we have an elections commission running the elections, not the city clerk. So I'll just move to put that in our notes to the call center as they, so that they can make sure that that is accurate in the final draft. reflect the system that we are operating under.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, I just, I would have some concerns at 30% if the composition of the council were to be as proposed by the study committee, because there'd be a lot of one-on-one races for seats. And I would think that in that situation, a 30% result would be not representative. So I just want to note that composition wise, that would be a concern for me. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears, to that point in your research, have you found there to be a significant difference in incumbency bias between someone who has the label candidate for re-election and someone who doesn't, even if they were serving?
[Zac Bears]: Right, which I think this charter gets rid of.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm just wondering how much, if you had any knowledge on how much that benefit to incumbents is literally the label on the ballot or being able to put Councilor X on their literature or just being in the meetings.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's just where I think, I understand why to say, oh, they wouldn't be able to put that on the ballot, but I don't know that that I'll get to my point around that when we talk about composition of the council. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I would just note of all of those options that being selected by duly elected people versus low turnout special election versus low threshold of voting. being a selection being made by the rest of the council is probably the most representative of the will of the people in that situation, because the people elected the other Councilors. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. And I appreciate you including this in this meeting. as I was going through a section 9-6 in the existing charter's periodic review of ordinances. And to me, ordinances are the purview of the legislative branch. Of course, the mayor has the ability to sign or veto, but the ordinance authority lies with the legislative branch. And to me, I believe that we should move this section 9-6 to section 2. I relabel it section 2-11. and then I would make two minor changes, which would be that the city council shall provide for a review. Right now it says the mayor and city council, and I would just change that to read the city council, and that the review shall be made by a special committee to be established by ordinance. I would change that to be established by a vote of the city council.
[Zac Bears]: Before we take that- It would be a motion to adopt the language as I propose.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, given Councilor Lemmy's comment, I'm happy to amend my proposal to not strike the words mayor and, and then I also just noticed that I also should have changed that the special committee shall file its report with the city clerk on a date specified by a vote of the city council instead of by ordinance. So I would just further amend my proposal based on Councilor Lemmy's comment and based on that.
[Zac Bears]: This is a suggestion to amend
[Zac Bears]: This motion would move section 9-6 to article 2, make it section 2-11. It would then change the words by ordinance to by vote of the City Council, both in the second sentence and the fourth sentence.
[Zac Bears]: Can I make a motion actually regarding section 2-4 first? Okay. I would just move that we move section 2-4 to a future meeting and to discuss sections 2-4, 3-1 and 4-4 as a single conversation at a future meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Tsang, and just given the length of the meeting so far to get through the smaller stuff, I figured this is gonna take a while, I think. And also I think it seems to be the main point of discussion around the proposals that I put forward was around the composition of the council. So just to set the frame here, the charter study committee recommended to the mayor and then through that to the council, city council composed of 11 members, eight representing each individual ward of the city and three elected at large. And something that I discussed in my conversations with the Charter Study Committee and something that I've had a lot of conversations with the past few years has been what the composition of the council should look like. And part of the proposal that I put forward tonight, which is to amend that proposal to have to follow what the Charter Study Committee proposed for the school committee, which would be a city council of seven members, three elected at large, and four from districts, which would be composed of two boards each, stems from three factors. One are my principles, two are the data, and three are my experience serving on the council and serving in the leadership of the council for the past three years. I think we've had a lot of conversation in the state and in the country about how should we elect elected officials. And we're one of only actually I think three countries on a federal level that elects our legislatures by first past the post single district voting. And I think one of the great advantages of the system that we have now, and I'm not advocating that we maintain an all at large system, is that everybody faces a competitive election. There's one district. Everybody's running against each other. There's no sailing through. And there was a great New York Times piece talking about proportional representation. That's a model that the Cambridge Planning Charter uses. And you see, through that model, the election of people of differing ideologies representing different bases of voters. Another conversation that's been discussed is a multi member districts. We also had the statewide ballot question on rank choice voting. And all of those are different ways to try to elect people that is not a first pass the posting. And the reason for that is that a first pass the post single district system tends to have less than ideal outcomes. And I think what is being proposed or was proposed with having a single district first past the post war districts might lead that direction here in the city as well. I have always been a strong supporter of more localized representation. I just think that there are different ways to have ward representation, different ways to have district representation than just saying our only options are all at large or all ward or a hybrid where you have only at large and only ward systems. So I think the charter study committee's proposal for the school committee and the reason that I went in that direction with my proposal is that it was already in the draft. I'd love to have a bigger conversation about more unique and interesting opportunities and options like proportional representation or ranked choice voting or multi-member districts, but those weren't surveyed, those weren't discussed, those weren't put forward as options. I went into the product, the work product of the charter study committee itself and found something that I think met the goal of having more localized representation while also maintaining some of the benefits of the at-large system and while avoiding some of the downsides of having so many of the council seats filled by first past the post single member districts. And that's why I proposed what I proposed. I mentioned a few different items here in my initial memorandum representation. This does bring us to local representation very much so compared to the existing approach of all at large council. accessibility-wise, it would be, I think, easier for voters to understand having a district Councilor, a district school committee member, and then the at-large members. They'd have less voters to, you know, less officials to keep track of, in some senses, or not exactly knowing which side of which street they lived on means that this is their Councilor versus that Councilor. Certainly from an efficiency perspective, there wouldn't be a need for more Councilors, chamber renovations, the meetings being longer because more Councilors are talking. I'm less married to those arguments, although I think they are just facts. And that is to say that I'm not opposed to a larger council. I just don't think that a larger council should be made up of first-past-the-post single-member districts. And some of the great discussion that has happened since I put these out and discussions that I had with lots of folks over the past two, three years, I want to note as well, from a representation perspective, you would have under the ward system of having eight wards versus four districts, significantly different weighting of individuals votes. If you're a voter in ward two or ward three, where you have very, very high turnout, your vote would be much less valuable to the selection of a Councilor than a vote in ward one. And I think that's an issue. I think the district moving to the district model mediates that somewhat. You'd also, from a representation perspective, if you look at, for example, racial demographics, there's essentially no difference in racial demographics between the Ward 6 seat and Ward 8 seats being separate and them being combined. There's somewhat of a difference in the Ward 7 seat versus combining the Wards 1 and 7 seats, but it's, I think, less than five points or maybe less than 10 points of a difference. And then I have talked to councillors as Councilor Scarpelli did in neighboring communities and other communities around the state that have a hybrid ward council representation. And there is a concern about competitiveness of running. You have a lot of uncontested elections for ward seats and I think again, that's one of the main concerns in general with first past the post single member districts is essentially you have two people running against each other. And, um, sometimes no one will run for that seat at all. And you'll have an uncontested race right now in Medford. I can't even remember the last time there was an uncontested race for city council, because I'm pretty sure all the elections in the past 20 years, there's been more than seven people running. Um, I've also heard some concerns about similar to what Councilor Scarpelli raised earlier that I think he, you know, he said those were his concerns before and he feels more alleviated by them from his discussions, but around prioritizing what's happening in one eighth of the city versus the whole city. And I've heard that as well as a concern from people who serve on bodies that have this type of representation. So I believe that this proposal that I put forward moves us significantly towards local representation of neighborhoods of the city without going down to such a small district and maintaining more of a balance between at large and local representation. So that's why I put this forward. I'm really interested to hear the thoughts of my colleagues. Certainly I'm happy to entertain amendments. And I would say that the, you know, the piece of this that I'm least concerned about is a bigger council. I'm not against a bigger council. I just am against a bigger council being formed exactly in this manner. So I hope that we can have a discussion of a model that fits the goals that all of us are seeking and fits, quite frankly, the way that most legislative bodies are elected in most of the world and most of the country, which is not through most of them being elected in first-past-the-post single-member districts. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and I appreciate that information as well. It's good to see, and two of the examples I saw in there were Revere and Weymouth, and you had a much more balanced distribution of at-large and district Councilors. Weymouth, I saw in there six, I believe six district five at-large, or maybe it was six at-large, five district, but again, right. And again, district, not ward. I want to make a point that this is local representation, the proposal that I put forward. We had a survey that went out that asked about one way that that could look, and people said we'd like a hybrid between local representation and an at-large. We didn't ask about a number of other ways that that could have been formulated, and we don't know what the survey would have said. other than to say that the survey said they want a hybrid of more local representation and at large representation. People did not want to stay at all at large, by and large, although I think some percentage did. People did not want all local representation. They wanted some form in the middle. And this proposal maintains that. I think it, I've seen a bunch of people who are very anti our revolution, Medford, who say we should stay at all at large. You know, I've seen a number of people who feel differently about that from different political persuasions. I don't think this is about politics in the most base sense. I think people have a lot of different opinions about how this should look. But again, my principle that I have said since I started running, a principle of the Our Revolution Mentored Platform was more local representation and not just having at large representation. And I stand fully with that. And again, another one was about more diversity. The demographics difference between the ward, going to all eight and doing four districts was not really statistically significant demographic difference in that makeup. The idea of a five at large four district, fine with that, too, if making the priority being a larger council, which I know the Charter Study Committee noted, and Chair McDonald has noted online, that having a larger council would make more sense in terms of our comparable communities in Massachusetts. I'm not against that. I just proposed what was proposed for the school committee in the Charter Study Committee's recommendation. And my main concern remains having more of a balance than three to eight of essentially a giant multi-member district for three councilors, which is a more fair way of electing people, and eight single district first past the post elections, which may in fact countervail our priorities for more diversity and more representation if we end up with people incumbents winning those elections and sitting in those seats for 20 years unchallenged because that happens a lot in communities that have a lot of small districts. And again, I just want to note the other point that I made earlier. If we have a bunch of small districts, given the traditional turnout in this community, we're devaluing certain votes and highly more valuing other votes in the city. And I think the district model proposed, whether it's three at large and four district or five at large and four district, it's a better balance between the two. It avoids some of the pitfalls of having votes weighted so differently against each other. And I just think it would serve the community better. That's why I propose this. It's my basic principle of why I propose literally everything I ever do here. So to anyone who may question that for whatever purpose, you're wrong. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I just want to be very clear. I'm not worried about the politics or the elections of any of these models. And I'm quite frankly, really sick of the politicization and the putting words in people's mouth that happens on this council by my colleague. I mean, we're having a discussion about what is a model that would work best for the community? What do we think gets us the best long-term outcomes in terms of good governance for this community? It's not about winning an election. Who's gonna win this election? Who's gonna win that election? It's not about saying that Matt thinks some words don't matter when he never said that. It's not about, you know, you're quoting a platform I helped to write. Right. And you're not quoting it in good faith. It says, I understand what's under you. I've read it. I wrote it. I helped to write it. And thank you. And it said, this is a version of word representation. It's a version of word representation that will be the school committee will have. That's what I'm proposing. And I laugh when I laugh because the absurdity of completely misreading and misstating what I've said and what other Councilors have said and what has been written down is just beyond the pale of having a respectful dialogue in this body. I support a new charter. If this discussion goes the way it seems like it's going, I support a new charter, but the way that it had to get here and the fact that the things that had to be brought up to try to spin it and tweak it and turn it in that way is just so beyond disappointing and beyond frustrating. Because again, the data, who cares, right? We said, who cares about data? I care about data. and the data shows that we would be on the very small end, not just of Massachusetts, but of the country in terms of if we go to word-based representation, Councilors per population. I think that's an important data point. I think the data point that's been raised about the fact that it, whether it's district or ward, doesn't affect the racial demographics of the districts, but does affect the fact that you might end up with uh, you know, long term incumbencies in very small districts or some people winning award seat with 2500 votes and some people winning award seat with 750 votes and then saying, so does that mean that some voters matter less than some voters matter more? That's just a data point. I'm very confident in the ability of everyone here to win elections because we've done it many times. I think we could have and all at large model and win elections and all ward model and win elections. But I just can't stand when the words are being put in our mouth. So it's just really frustrating. Another thing that we talked about was, do we want to fix what's been wrong or do we want to make things better? I don't want to make things worse. And the reason that I put this forward is that I in good faith think that there's a way that the way that this is written out makes things worse. I would support a 15-person city council with seven at-large and eight wards. That's ward representation and an even number of at-large seats. My biggest concern is having a ward-based representation of all eight wards as individual wards with only three at-large city councilors brings in some of the worst practices of elected government in this country and in the state and ruins and takes out some of the best. That's my issue. I think more balance between those two things is a good thing. I don't think at this point that this is going to be well considered, but I'd be willing to do another survey with a few more models and see what people actually support. Cause I don't think we really know. And I don't think we've had a conversation about all of the costs and benefits of making these choices. That's why I put forward what I put forward for no other reason. And I really, really resent the implication to the contrary. And I think quite frankly, that bringing all of the politics into this is what poisoned it and will poison it in either direction. So I really hope that that's something we can get away from on this council as it continues under this form or any other form, because This is a good faith conversation based on data and principles. And when we bring in all this other stuff that nobody brought up except to malign their colleagues, it just leaves a horrible taste in my mouth. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No one is asking my colleague to apologize for what he believes or for his position on this. Specific things were said that were then mischaracterized to make a point. and I don't take your words and then say, oh, you actually said this other thing that you didn't say. That's the only thing that frustrates me here. That's why, I mean, I didn't say that. It's not about anything like that. I don't think you should believe what you should believe or be able to say, Councilor Scarpelli. But I do think that saying that another member of this council said that some words don't matter when he didn't say that is just beyond the pale. I also want to say that we have a statutory role in this process as members of the city council. There were many times I can think of many votes and I appreciate that councilor Scarpelli's mind has changed on this matter. where a lot of people came up to this podium and said, we think this is what's best for the community to have a charter change. We need a charter review process. We need this council to pass a home rule petition so that we can elect a charter commission and do a charter change. And all of those voices didn't change that mind of that council or other Councilors who voted against it for multiple terms. I also want to say that You've heard of multiple differing opinions from the six people who supposedly all believe the same thing tonight. We don't obviously believe the same thing. We've all said, we believe in different pieces of this. So that's what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about, I'm sorry for bringing politics into politics. Of course this is politics. I'm talking about misrepresenting the information and the facts on the matter and the things that people say to score political points, to try to make something seem like what it isn't. because that may serve some sort of purpose, or it may advantage your position, or maybe you'll end up getting the result that you want. It's not something that I do. We can go back and look at the tape. I'm very, very, very consistent in saying that I do, I say what I think should happen, and I try to represent those values and those principles based on the facts and the information that I have at hand. I did want to ask the Collins Center a question about what it looks like in terms of the competitiveness of elections in districts where you have, in cities or other communities in Massachusetts where you have systems like this. Do you see that having, or do you have any data to talk about what it looks like, how many races go uncontested in ward seats versus an all-at-large model? how long incumbent terms are in models like this versus models where there's more competitive elections. Do you have that data available to you? And also, if members of the Charter Study Committee would like to talk about discussions that may have happened in the Charter Study Committee around what this model would mean for competitive elections, incumbency, et cetera.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: So competitiveness of the different models wasn't considered as part of the discussion.
[Zac Bears]: I'd be happy to hear personal experience.
[Zac Bears]: So about half the time. Right. And again, I talked to my colleagues in Somerville. I talked to my colleagues in Malden. I talked to my colleagues in Everett. And were you in a ward-based seat?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. A lot of ward-based seats go uncontested. Under the current model of the city council, no one ever goes uncontested. Those are the facts. And I'm not saying let's stay at all at large. The people don't want that. But I'm hearing that we don't have data on competitiveness. We didn't discuss competitiveness. And I think having competitive elections where the people in office are challenged to maintain their seats. is essential and that we should have a form and a structure of democracy that encourages that. And I think that if we're going to move in a direction where there's going to be potentially more uncompetitive elections, that we need a balance there. And I think saying that we're going to have a model where eight of the seats may often be uncontested or at least uncontested half the time, and only three of the seats would be contested more regularly is not a good balance for the competitiveness of elections. And those are the questions that I would like to see looked at more or for us to have a discussion here about looking at a model that has a little more balance considering that we didn't consider those questions and we don't have the answers in front of us. I wanna be challenged, run against me. I don't think this is a model that encourages that. That's why I put this forward. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. First, I just wanted to state that some of the concerns that former member Van der Kloot raised are exactly the reasons that I have concerns about the model. But I have just two questions for you, Chair McDonald, if I may. In your research from past elections, did you find any council election that went uncontested?
[Zac Bears]: Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And, you know, just given the discussion that we've had tonight and given the discussions that I've been having, would you or leadership of the Charter Study Committee or in partnership with us and the mayor be willing to survey specific options for hybrid representation at this point so that we could determine more specifically what the intent of the people who was surveyed with about the different options that have been proposed?
[Zac Bears]: If we were to move in that direction, would you be open to being consulted in the process?
[Zac Bears]: All right. I just think we actually mostly agree on this. We all agree on a hybrid model of some at large and some local representation, and I think we've spent 90 minutes plus, two hours, and maybe even longer than that, arguing about the specifics of it. And we don't actually have a lot of data beyond the fact that people want a hybrid form of government. And it might behoove us to try to do a scientific poll to actually ask—give people specific options about what that could look like.
[Zac Bears]: Not proportional, not rank choice, none of that.
[Zac Bears]: Like the district versus board.
[Zac Bears]: I want to consult on what we would specifically ask.
[Zac Bears]: But it just seems to me that we basically all agree that there should be a hybrid model where there's some level of local representation and some level of at-large representation, but that beyond that specific question, the residents weren't asked about different models that that could look like. And to be frank, and I understand that some people disagree with this, the Charter Study Committee chose two different options for the two different legislative bodies of the city. And so
[Zac Bears]: I understand why you felt, why this committee's recommendations felt that they could be considered differently. I just think that the reason that I put forward what I proposed is because I saw what you guys wrote for that school committee.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, there's a bunch of different configurations across a bunch of different cities. Right.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not suggesting it's unheard of. I'm just suggesting that—I'll leave it at that. I think we could get more information about the specifics and ask the voters, because I I just think there are some pitfalls that have been for the school committee correctly identified in the formation of the composition of the school committee that I'm very concerned would be very similar for the council if composed differently. And I think it's worth trying to have a deeper answer to that question. So I might propose that. path forward, but.
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Just to follow up on that, would you consider if we were to adopt the three at large for district or five at large for district for the council for that to be unusual for the legislature to see?
[Zac Bears]: Oh yeah, multi-member district or proportional representation.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I don't think we're considering that at this point.
[Zac Bears]: Did that amendment also then go to a referendum?
[Zac Bears]: To that end, I'd like to further amend my motion, which has been amended by Councilor Collins, to refer these recommendations to a final committee of the whole meeting to consider all of the proposed recommendations of this committee after the three meetings of the Governance Committee. Thank you. So, do we have a second on? I'm just amending my initial motion. I don't know if there's a second on my initial motion but my initial motion was to make this proposed change and then Councilor Collins amended that to be five at large and four from districts instead of the original proposal and then my final is that this this along with everything else that this committee recommends go to committee the whole for final consideration. Great.
[Zac Bears]: I got you. To further clarify that we hold a committee of the whole to consider all of the recommendations voted on in this committee. So we voted on some recommendations, amendments earlier in the meeting, the smaller ones to the different sections. essentially that we, once we've gone through these three meetings where we split it up, we have a meeting where we review the amended red line draft based on the votes of this committee.
[Zac Bears]: So, basically what I'm just saying is that I think at least as I was understood in this process, up until this point, the recommendations of this committee would have gone directly to the regular meeting. I think it makes sense to have a committee of the whole prior to a final vote of the regular meeting so that we can hear from our two colleagues not on the committee in a committee meeting dedicated solely to this topic. And then the regular meeting vote would be based on something that the whole council had reported out of committee.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, in that committee of the whole that we take all of the motions from this committee and create a red line draft and then we can consider that in committee of the whole before it goes to a regular meeting.
[Zac Bears]: just to outline the schedule we're scheduled again to meet on February 4th and then February 19th this would have essentially the only difference here would be considering this on February 25th or March 11th at our regular meeting we would need to consider it on the 11th if we tried to schedule a committee of the whole in advance. So it would be a two weeks of additional consideration. And that does assume that we get through everything in the three governance committee meetings and we don't have to move to the governance committee scheduled for March 4th, which would have put us at March 11th anyway, which is ahead of our goal of getting this done by the end of March. I guess just to the call-in center representatives in terms of moving this through legislatively, is there a material difference of us reporting this to the mayor and the mayor submitting this to the council in early March versus late March in terms of the legislature getting this done in time for us to? Yes.
[Zac Bears]: All right. So we need to try to get this to them in early March then as we originally planned. Great.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Kiley. You basically answered the question I was going to ask which, but just to kind of clarify and drive the point home. It's much we're using the capital funding much more efficiently this way than we are when we're doing spot repairs with contractors.
[Zac Bears]: And this is both for sidewalks and for street repair. The crew is going to be doing spot repairs where we previously were hiring contractors to do spot repairs like patching and crack sealing and spot panels of sidewalk.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so essentially on both of these fronts we're talking about moving from triaging emergency spot repairs with outside contractors to being able to do all of that work in-house plus maybe even a little bit of production worker, you know, maybe some people might call it, you know. a new project.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And then just on the front of the money going towards our roads and sidewalks, and you know, correct me if I'm getting my six-month-old back of the napkin calculations wrong, but We were talking about needing to move into the $5.5 to $6.5 million a year range of spending, and we were somewhere in the $3.5 to $4 million range. So this gets us another $500,000 closer to that $5.5 to $6.5 million range, essentially, because we're going to still be doing. And does the efficiency impact that at all as well? Because we're using the money more efficiently, does it give us an even further added benefit than just adding 500,000 towards that annual repair budget?
[Zac Bears]: Great. And I guess just to follow up, you know, when we talk about that $2 million, when we talk about that money in general, we're talking about the money that we're actually spending on We're not necessarily talking about the money we're spending on the staff, per se, or I guess just Yeah, okay.
[Zac Bears]: But we're talking about like the capital costs of like the materials for the project?
[Zac Bears]: Labor, materials. Yes. Even does that even include like police details and stuff like that?
[Zac Bears]: Right. So it's across all bands, I understand that it's complicated to determine you know how much does one person's time equivalent spend if they're doing a million overlay versus a completely redoing the base of the road versus doing crack ceiling I get that it's a hard calculation but it's helpful for me to try to understand right you talked about. um combining cdbg and chapter 90 funds to go towards it sounds like a few seven streets of mills and mill and overlay is that yeah that's all we have targeted at the moment right there will be more right right right and that community development block grant money is set aside for sidewalks within the eligible areas right we're also going for you know other funding sources that aren't
[Zac Bears]: And I guess the question I'm asking, and again, I understand the answer is probably just going to be it's complicated, is can I add up the highway department budget plus the CDBG money we're using this year plus the Chapter 90 money we're using this year plus some other grant money we're using this year and say, well, that all adds up to four and a half million. So that's good. We're above the three and a half million. And I think you're getting there.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I think that kind of, you know, the trend-based stuff and the reassessment, I appreciate that that's the direction we're moving in. I know that we're in the kind of the early days of that. You know, I think for me, or it would be helpful for me to understand maybe after the next iteration of it, or maybe it'll take two, I don't know. And maybe it's just gonna be different because of how resources are allocated, but like, what dollar amount of money that we put into preventative maintenance at the lower end of the scale, or into mill and overlay, or into where we just had to completely redo a street, like how much of an increase in the PCI and the SCI did that get us for that money? Because then we can take that and say, okay, if we put, let's say, let's call it three bands. I know it's really about five, but like, let's call it three. Like if we put a million into band one and 2 million into band two and 2 million into band three, we think we'll move up five points in the next two years. Then we can start to understand, I think that financial scope of things a little bit better. At least that's what I would, you know, like us to move towards.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no.
[Zac Bears]: So, right. Yeah, no. And I totally, you know, wasn't trying to throw out unrealistic numbers for you guys to try to meet. It was just totally, you know, we ran.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I think at some point also being able to know how much invested in each band, like what does that reduce the backlog by, and I get that that's a little bit of kind of a, right now we're just trying to feel that out.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I appreciate that. And I know last time, or maybe two times ago, we had this conversation, you were talking about how a piece of that dollar amount is the utilities and the work that they do. And obviously you can't quite know how much they're spending.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. So they're just evening out the damage that they're doing.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Just a little bit worse because we're trying to minimize how much worse they make it.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Okay. Well, it's totally worth the a hundred million we're sending to the British owners, right? Totally worth it. Love that.
[Zac Bears]: Medford city council committee of the whole January 21 2025 is called the order Mr. please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: 7 present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. Action and discussion items, paper 25014, submitted by the Community Preservation Committee, January 2025, Community Preservation Act funding recommendations. Dear, to the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council, Medford City Hall, regarding Community Preservation Act funding recommendations for the January 21st, 2025 Community of the Whole. On behalf of the Community Preservation Committee, I humbly submit to this body the following recommendations for Community Preservation Act funding appropriations accompanied by individual project descriptions and details. Affordable Housing Trust initial tranche funding, 250,000. Oak Grove Cemetery building restoration phase two, 85,000. Playstead Park tennis courts resurfacing, 526,000. Condon Shell Lighting Improvements, $98,285. Council Chamber Window Restoration, $322,500. Shiloh Baptist Church ADA Improvements, Phase 2, $400,000. Unitarian Universalist Church Exterior Restoration, $99,000. ABCD, Action for Boston Community Development. Medford Move-In Program, $100,000. Respectfully submitted, Teresa DuPont, Community Preservation Act Manager. And I figure I can turn it over to you and we can take it in that order if that works for you. Teresa, great. I'm not touching anything.
[Zac Bears]: The manager.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions by members of the council at this time? seeing Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: I think that's fine. You also don't stand to benefit personally from it. So it's probably a mixed case, but it's fine. We'll just mark you present when we vote on it. Maybe we can sever that vote.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I just wanted to clarify that. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, you're doing great.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. Do we have any questions from members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions from members of the Council or comments on this matter? Seeing none, are there any questions or comments from members of the public? Seeing none, thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Next we'll move to the Oak Grove Cemetery building restoration phase two. And I'll note for applicants, you know, we appreciate the presentation, but you don't have to come with a PowerPoint. We may have had a highly prepared group go first. We just want to hear about your project and be able to ask questions if needed.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Any questions on this project by members of the council? Seeing none. I just wondered, Tim, and give me a minute to pull my records together. From the first part of the project, OK, never mind. It's answered right in here. You're estimating $5 to $8 million for the restoration of, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: OK. And is the idea, have you thought, have you had discussions about potential funding sources for the project?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. Seeing no questions on this project for members of the council. Are there any questions by members of the public, either in the chamber or on zoom? Seeing none. Thank you. Commissioner McGovern, we can move to ours. Mr. Bailey's still in the parks commission meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, great. You're on that one. Okay, fantastic. Then we'll go to that. And it says DPW, so that makes sense, too. If you want to present the project for Playset Park tennis court resurfacing for $526,000.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions by members of the council? Councilor Callahan and then Councilor Lazzaro. And then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Skripal and Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think there's a Parks Commission meeting happening in room 201 that he's in. I'm not 100% sure. So yeah. That's probably it, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further questions, members of the council? I don't want to bring up any third rails, but is this going to remain tennis only? or?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any questions by members of the public on the Placeland Park Tennis Court resurfacing? Seeing no hands on Zoom, no one in the chamber. Thank you, Commissioner. You're welcome. Move next to Condon Shell Lighting Improvement.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mayor Dupont. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Any other questions for members of the Council on the Condon Shell? Seeing none, any questions from members of the public, either in person or on Zoom regarding the Condon Shell? Seeing none, we'll move to the next item we have. Council Chamber Window Restoration. Do you want to take that to the end or do you want to do it now?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, because this is a historic preservation project. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Correct.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Do we have any questions on this one? And I just have a procedural note, but I'll wait till, do councilors have questions about this? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Is there anything, I'll go to Councilor Leming, and then I'll ask. Go ahead, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: We're going to need to figure that out. That was what I was going to bring up. So we're going to need a separate letter from the mayor requesting that we rescind the appropriation of the stabilization fund money. because you can't ask us to do that. No, I can't.
[Zac Bears]: Great, yeah, so that should just be a separate paper on our agenda, because it's an appropriation. I do want to ask if the facilities manager, Paul Riggi, do you have anything you want to add to this?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Manager Reed. And Paul, I have one other question. Is this going to include, it's going to be restoration of the wood frame windows, does it also include the shades and that?
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions by members of the council on the window restoration? Councilor Scarpelli, is your hand up for this?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, just wanted to make sure. All right, on that note, is there any discussion by members of the public on this item? And I can't remember the meeting date, but we did go into a little bit more detail on this project in December or November.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Seeing none, we'll move on to the next item, which is our Shiloh Baptist Church ADA improvements phase two, 400,000.
[Zac Bears]: Welcome to both of you.
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have any questions by members of the Council? I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes. And seeing no other questions from the council. I also just want to say.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And I just wanted to add as well, I think it's a great project and serving a lot of community benefit out of it. I know daycare and childcare is so essential. And so to have that space be available for that is really wonderful. And I also hope it brings a lot of improvements to the building as well for all the other uses that people use it for.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next, we will go to the UU Church exterior restoration.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Wonderful, thank you so much. Any questions or comments by members of the council? Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean I think it's pretty. The standard test is, do you or any immediate family members or associates stand to benefit financially from your vote? And I don't, I mean, that's your call. I don't know. But unless you are going to be hired by the UU Church to do door restoration or someone in your family, which I don't think either of you are. I've attended a couple of services myself. I plan to vote on this. So that's generally the test. If you don't feel comfortable with it, I think we have the quorum and the votes to move forward without you. But yeah, you're not receiving a personal benefit from this project. Okay. Councilor Lazzaro, and you could check with the Ethics Commission. If you wanted to ask them, you could ask them. You have to ask prior to a vote. So if you abstain tonight, you could ask them in advance of the vote at the regular meeting. You could review their regulations online or review the conflict of interest and ethics trainings that we all have to take every year. But generally, I think you're in the clear on this one. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Right, yeah. I mean, unless you were being hired to do the work itself. That's really the only way I could see this being an issue. An example I can give you, in 2020, I and my family, my parents and I had invested in Medford Brewing Company. Prior to that, we had to, I called the ethics commission, we had to divest and sell our investments in order to, for me to vote on the brewpub ordinance because it would have benefited the, because we were investors. But this, I know it's a church, it's a nonprofit organization. You're not shareholders. you're not paid by the organization, nor will you be paid for the work. So that's my general interpretation. All right. Any other questions on the Unitarian University Church's exterior restoration? By members of the council, seeing none, any thoughts, comments, questions by members of the public? Also seeing none, we can move to the last item, which is ABCD move-in assistance.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Caput.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Is it is it is it regional?
[Zac Bears]: Um well, any other questions or comments by members of the Seeing none, I just have one, this is our third year? Third year in a row we're doing the move-in program? Great, thank you. All right. That's for a family of four.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Well, that is the conclusion. We'd either make a motion to refer, someone could make a motion to refer this to the regular meeting, and you guys could abstain if you want, or we could sever it. I just want to make sure Councilor Lazzaro and Leming feel comfortable. Okay. We'll move to refer everything but the UU paper severed. That's a motion by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, and I'll go to Councilor Leming for discussion.
[Zac Bears]: Okay if you're both abstaining then I need a second from Councilor Tseng Collins or Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli to sever off the UU. Mr. Clerk please call the roll and refer to the regular meeting. This is a vote to just take the UU project out and advance it to the regular meeting. Just the UU and then everything else.
[Zac Bears]: This is to sever UU and refer UU to the regular meeting. And then we'll vote on everything else in the motion. Yeah. Yes. On the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. By the affirmative, two present, the motion passes. Is there a motion to refer the remaining papers to the regular meeting? On the motion of council, I'm going to refer the remaining by council Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. It was, uh, Councilor Leming and Councilor Lazzaro was the second.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I mean, from the negative, the motion passes. Anything else anyone would like to add?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, yes. And you can let folks know, you know, next week is relatively pro forma. If folks want to come on Zoom, that's fine. We won't be asking questions. People don't have to take the time out. you know the uncertainty of the council agenda never know how long it'll take appreciate that we're hoping to work on that a little bit but okay i can't make motions on the motion of anyone else to adjourn on the motion of council i mean to adjourn seconded by Councilor Callahan, and I'll just remind everyone we do have coming up in probably about five minutes, Public Works and Facilities Committee discussing some roads updates and volunteer tree planting program that we'd like to get off the ground. So on the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll to adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean from another motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank you for getting us off to the start of this meeting. And I want to note just that the comprehensive plan and the zoning that we've been implementing based on the comprehensive plan for the city which was developed over two years with input from thousands of residents, is based on a model of neighborhoods, squares, and corridors. We have been looking at corridors so far, and we'll be looking at squares going forward, and this tonight we're talking about neighborhoods and neighborhood residential and I really appreciate that this meeting you know we're taking a second meeting in two weeks to look at a proposal and starting tonight just looking at general ideas and the research that has been done on the neighborhood residential and having looked at the presentation that was sent over by email I I'm really looking forward to the presentation, but also, you know, do have some thoughts and some suggestions that I'm going to make after this meeting and look forward to seeing those hopefully incorporated into the draft that we see in two weeks. And with that, I just want to thank again, the chair and the team that's working on this as well as fellow members of the committee. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: We can see the screen share on Zoom. I think it might require maybe with the Zoom update a change in the booth to click the screen share instead of the video.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And thank you, Chair Collins and Councilor Scarpelli for your comments. And thank you Paula and Emily and the team for this presentation. I do have a concern about the level of incremental step up that we see here. And I'm not necessarily saying I'm going to make a motion, and I'm not saying that it has to go exactly by the lines in this proposal as exists now. But I think for neighborhood residential, it really should just be NR1, NR2, and NR3. And perhaps we could consider something like NR4 as an urban residential one and an urban residential two. And I think that would be a more incremental change to allow for more of what we see actually existing in a lot of these places compared to the zoning that was passed in many cases decades after homes were constructed. That limited what could be built beyond what's actually there and created all the nonconformities that we have. So I would recommend, and I'm gonna make a motion and I will email it to the clerk. And I do have a second motion, but I would move to adjust the proposed neighborhood residential districts by one, removing the NR4 district type and considering that as part of the urban residential topic as a potential urban residential one district. Classifying all the areas currently on this proposal listed with some adjustments based on the work that you guys are going to do to go down to the parcel level. Currently on the proposal listed as NR1 and NR2 as NR1. Classify the areas currently in the proposal listed as NR3, as NR2. and classify all the areas currently listed on the proposal as NR4, as NR3, and to adjust the NR3 type to remove the one unit by right, which I think will meet some of the changes. And then I would also just note that any parcel where the current district is general residential should be at least NR2. and that any district where the current zoning is an apartment district should be NR3.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'll do that. And I have a further motion, but I know folks want to discuss that one first. It's a significant change.
[Zac Bears]: I think, yes, that's fair. And I'm emailing it now.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to make my other motion, which is to request that the chair work with the administration to increase accessible materials, notices, and communications about upcoming meetings and distribute them to the community. and I've sent the language for both of these over. I have to step out in a few minutes, five minutes, but I'm happy to answer any questions on my motion now and potentially consider them if possible. But if not, I hope my colleagues will consider them and approve them.
[Zac Bears]: It would be the second one. It's essentially downstepping each of the shades. So the very light yellow would stay the same, the medium yellow would go down to the light yellow, the lighter orange would go down to the medium yellow, and the dark orange would go down to the lighter orange.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, that's the intent.
[Zac Bears]: upon me as President of the Medford City Council, as President of the Medford City Council, according to the best of my ability, according to the best of my ability, and understanding, and understanding, agreeable to the rules and regulations of the Constitution, agreeable to the rules and regulations of the Constitution, the laws of this Commonwealth, the laws of this Commonwealth, and the ordinances of the City of Medford, and the ordinances of the City of Medford.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to thank my colleagues for the honor of serving as President. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: 25003 offered by Vice President Collins, resolution to adopt the standing committee rules from the prior year. Be it resolved that the standing committee rules be adopted as the standing rules of the city council insofar as they're applicable. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: on the motion of vice president comes to approve seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. I oppose the motion passes to 5004 offered by Councilor Collins, be it resolved that the city council transfer all papers and committee or on the table from the 2024 Council to the 2025 Council vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: opposed the motion passes announcements accolades remembrances reports and records to 5008 offered by councillor Scarpelli be it resolved that the Medford City Council send our deepest condolences to the family of john granada john was a lifelong resident of the city of medford where he raised his amazing family mr granada worked and retired from the Middlesex Sheriff's Department Mr. Granada volunteered for so many projects for a great city that there are too many to list, but a few come to mind. His work with the veterans of the American Legion Program honoring our vets on Veterans Day with this program at the Oak Grove Cemetery. He and the Granada family created and ran the nonprofit pancreatic cancer awareness program, Granada Scary Trust that raised over $1 million over many years for cancer research. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It resolved that the Medford City Council send our deepest condolences to the family of Ralph Evangelista. Ralph leaves his wife, Loretta, and two daughters, Julianne, and former City and School Department employee, Lisa Evangelista. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. Records. The records of the meeting of December 17th, 2024 were passed to Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Reports of committees, 24-511 offered by Councilor Bears, Committee of the Whole, December 17th, 2024. Sure. Sorry about that. On the request of Councilor Scarpelli, we're gonna take a moment of silence on the two condolences. Everyone could please rise. Thank you. On the reports of committees, we have paper 24511, which is a committee of the whole to discuss and caucus for council leadership for the year. 2025. We just held those votes earlier in this meeting. Is there a motion to approve? A motion approved by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Callaghan. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. 24006, Committee of the Whole, December 18, 2024. This was on the update to the 2024-2025 Council Governing Agenda. which we went through in pretty, was a very detailed meeting. And is there a motion on that? On the motion to approve by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. We had one committee report left off. Is there a motion to take it under suspension?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to suspend the rules to take paper 24468 under suspension, that's the governance committee report January 7 2025, seconded by seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. I oppose motion passes Councilor say, there we go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve the committee report, seconded by? Seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Refer to committee for further discussion. 25-005 offered by Councilor Sagan, Councilor Leming. Whereas most of Medford's financial electoral personnel assessment and other information is not readily available for bulk analysis. Whereas analysis of such data would advance the City Council's goals of greater transparency and resident participation by allowing the city staff and residents to share and analyze data. Be it resolved that Medford create a system for residents to engage with data collected by the city of Medford and collaborate with city partners on policy development. Be it further resolved that this resolution be referred to the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, whereas this is in the refer to committee for further discussion section, I will entertain a brief summary before this goes to committee for the discussion, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank Councilor Tseng on the motion of Councilor Tseng to refer to the resident services and public engagement committee seconded by Councilor Leming Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion passes. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to suspend the rules to take papers to 5006 to 4510 to 4502 and 23055 seconded by seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. Opposed. Motion passes to 5006 resolution to support families of youth with disabilities offered by Councilor Leming and Councilor Callahan. Whereas youth with disabilities need support during their developmental years, whereas parents of youth with disabilities are under supported and often have often have to go outside municipalities to find programs for their kids. And whereas after school programs are rare in Medford and those support that support youth with disabilities are non existent. Be it resolved that the Bedford City Council strongly encourage the administration to prioritize these members of our community by finding a way to quickly set up programs that meet their specific needs. Be it further resolved that the City Council listen to the comments of parents of youth with disabilities on their own experiences in finding support. Councilor Leming, and then I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. And before we hear directly I just want to say thank you to Trisha and all the parents. who've been working on this for years. I want to thank former school committee member McLaughlin who's here with us tonight and who has been a voice on the school committee as well. And I want to acknowledge this is the second night in a row that a lot of parents have turned out. They were at school committee last night and we saw, I think, some significant progress last night with some investments in programming that parents have really been asking for. And that quite frankly would not have been possible if we didn't have the supplemental budget. from the override and I think prioritizing these investments was one of the reasons that we did that. And I really want to thank everyone who advocated and also the school committee for making those decisions last night. So, and just also thank Vice Chair Graham who, Vice Chair Graham and I had an initial meeting and a lot has blossomed since then that I'm grateful to see. So with that, if there's any other Councilors who'd like to share anything, Before we open to the public, I'll go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli then Council is our Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I'll open the floor to public participation. If folks would like to speak, they can make a line behind the podium or raise their hand on Zoom. And I also just want to note before we do that, that I know that a lot of people speaking here are everyday advocates. And part of what I think we're hearing here is how can the community step up for these parents and these families so that we're all advocating together for inclusion and immersion and some of the things that I've been most proud to see in the city. When we have young people of all abilities, working together on different things in our schools and in our community. So with that, I will go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. There's no one on Zoom, so we'll stay at the podium.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. And I'm going to go on to Zoom. We have Eileen Lerner on Zoom. Eileen, I'm gonna request to unmute. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. Go to Marie on Zoom. Marie, I'm gonna ask you to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: Can you just give your name and address for the record?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll try to keep it going. I will go to Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Leming. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I'm glad we're having this meeting because I think we're generating more threads and more things that we can work on. Sounds like Councilor Tseng and Councilor Scarpelli have both been talking to Director Bailey about some different programs. And I also just want to make a pitch since I can't make motions, I'll make a pitch. We had a really concrete ask for a part time support uh person in the city and we can't appropriate money but we can request and maybe if someone wants to make a motion that that be our first budget request of the budget cycle start a couple months early that's something we could attach to this paper tonight so I can't do that myself I I would. Councilor Scarpelli uh seconded by Councilor Leming and oh and Councilor Leming has more to say about that so go to Councilor Leming and then Councilor
[Zac Bears]: So I'll call it a motion from Councilor Scarpelli and Councilor Leming to amend the paper to make a budget request for the fiscal 26 budget cycle to the mayor for additional staff to coordinate and support youth with disabilities in the recreation department with further discussions to come. Yes, that sounds good. Great. Do you also want to amend to make a suggestion around community development block grant?
[Zac Bears]: Alright, but we can keep that thread going. I know there's a lot more than just what's on the page here. Yeah. Um so with that, I will go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it's been a long few years. All right, well, thank you everybody for this discussion. And I know there's a lot more work ahead. And of course we have to work with all the folks who make government churn, but we will continue to work on that. On the motion of Councilor Leming and Callahan, as amended by Councilor Scarpelli and Leming, as seconded by Council Vice President Collins, any further discussion? Sure. That was thank you all, and we will be back. Thank you. All right. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Paper 24510, the loan order for our school HVAC infrastructure and roof bonds eligible for third reading. January 14th, 2025, was advertised in the Medford Transcript and Several Journal December 26th, 2024. And this is the meeting, we just had a meeting on this at 6 p.m. for further presentation regarding the school HVAC and infrastructure and roof bond projects at the McGlynn Complex and the Andrews Middle School. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. And yes, as discussed, this is the first part of the project and we're going to be hearing more once some of the final pre-purchasing and other elements are completed And again, folks can take a look at the recording of the meeting that we had at six o'clock tonight if they want to see the full presentation. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Tseng and then Councilor Kelly and Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve the loan order for third reading, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. 24-502, amendments to the Community Controller Public Surveillance Ordinance. First reading, December 17th, 2024. Advertised Medford Transcript and Somerville Journal, December 26th, 2024. Eligible for third reading, January 14th, 2025. Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve for third reading, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng to approve for third reading. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. 23055, welcoming city ordinance. First reading, December 17th, 2024. Advertised December 26th, 2024, Medford transcript and summer roll journal. Eligible for third reading January 14th, 2025. I will go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: So there's a motion to approve for third reading as amended to remove the last clause of our second sentence in section 50103B, seconded by Councilor Leming. I'll go to Councilor Leming and then Councilor Skarpuk.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarborough.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Sorry, I'm going to Councilor Kellogg.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Leming to approve for third reading as amended. Is there any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public? I have a hand on Zoom. If anyone would like to speak at the podium, they can go to the podium as well. We'll start with Dennis on Zoom. Dennis, I'm going to request to unmute you and you'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes. Sorry, one second, Gaston, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: All I can say is I agree with the spirit of your question of what is the point of this. State law requires that we advertise in a print newspaper these ordinances.
[Zac Bears]: You can find about five copies at 7-Eleven. I used to be a subscriber when it covered Medford up until about 2022. And then Gannett Company essentially gutted all of the local newspapers that they owned, merged some together, reassigned reporters to different beats. And we no longer had a Medford beat reporter, which is the situation we've been in for two and a half years if folks can correct me on the timeline a little bit. But this was advertised in the print version of the Medford transcript in Somerville Journal. The clerk can can provide the receipts. And to be honest, I think this There's a state law around advertising that harkens back to the time when most everybody got a local newspaper and actually read through the advertisements to see what was going on in the city. So we advertise public hearings in the paper, we advertise second readings of ordinances in the paper. We also, of course, put up the agendas and write everything on our website and the portal that we have. But the state requires us to post in print paper of record.
[Zac Bears]: And they might have a new. I don't know if they publish everything from the print newspaper online. I don't think they do. So yeah, that's.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I have seen I was reading through the end of session bills to see if something that we had put forward had gone through at the legislature they just had their end of session, December 31, I think 2024 lasted maybe a little longer at the state house and everywhere else. I'm just kind of saying that I saw a title of a community that had filed a home rule petition to request that they could post these things on a bulletin board on their city website instead of in a paper. I think we would have to ask the state to allow us an exemption from the state law to do so.
[Zac Bears]: No, I appreciate it. It's a procedural quirk that deserves some explanation. So thank you. All right, I'm gonna go to Zoom. We'll go to Steve Schnapp on Zoom, and then we'll go back to the podium. Steve, I've requested you to unmute. You'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. No one on Zoom, so we'll remain at the podium. name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to Zoom. Muneer Jumanis, I'll ask you to unmute and you'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll stay on Zoom. I'll go to Eileen Lerner. Name and address for the record, please. Eileen, you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Eileen, please direct your comments to the chair, and I'm gonna have to give Councilor Scarpelli a chance to respond. Please direct your comments to the chair. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, you had a minute left. I'm going to go back to you if you'd like to finish your comment, but please direct your comments to the chair. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: You know, I think- Please direct your comments to the chair. Please direct your comments to the chair.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comments, I appreciate that. All right, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Let me turn on the microphone.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no further discussion by members of the Council or members of the public on the motion of Councilors saying we have one more hand on Zoom. Just in the nick of time, we'll go to Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom and you'll have three minutes. Give me one second. Andy, if you could, I'm requesting you to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. Seeing no further discussion by members of the public or members of the council on the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve for third reading as amended by Councilor Tseng and seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk please call the role.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes and the ordinance is ordained for adjournment. All right. Could we take the hearings in the VIC? Yeah. Yeah. Oh, the community, the CPC. I didn't even realize that was on here. Under suspension, Councilor Scarpelli wants to take 25007. And 25013, the building department. All right. And we have the veteran services director too, so 24, 3, 5, 1. Veteran service director Shaw's here too for 24, 3, 5, 1. It's the resolution to allow the director to offer housing incentives to veteran renters. We'll do all three of the fun ones where we have some city staff present. So we'll start with 25-007 submitted by the mayor, community preservation. Sorry, I have to get my papers together here. We have a request from the CPC to dear community preservation appropriation request from the mayor, dear president bears members of the city council on behalf of your community preservation committee, I respect the request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following recommendation of the CPC requesting the appropriation of 146,000 from the CPA general reserve to the office of planning development and sustainability for phase two of the car park renovation project. This project will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund. We have the CPC recommendation letter attached and incorporated. CPA Manager DuPont and City Planner Centrella are in attendance. And we do have the signed letter from the chair of the CPC, who was here, but she had to go. All right. I'll go to Manager DuPont if you want to give a presentation on this.
[Zac Bears]: great. We have planner Centrala. You're recognized.
[Zac Bears]: Just want to say thank you. I know that a lot of work has gone into trying to figure out how to make sure that all the deadlines worked out on this project. I know it was some intense management, so I just want to thank you for that. Are there any questions by members of the council? Seeing none, is there anything you'd like to add? Oh, I'll go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: thank you on the motion to approve by councillor collins seconded by councillor saying any further discussion by members of the council seeing none is there anything you'd like to add uh theresa oh sorry
[Zac Bears]: I think we're federal, state, local on this one, if I'm correct.
[Zac Bears]: Federal, state, and local on this one.
[Zac Bears]: All right.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much. On the motion, any further discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none negative. The motion passes. Thank you. All right. We'll do 24.351, a resolution to allow the director of veteran services to offer housing incentives to veteran renters, whereas veterans in the city of Menford need a place to live and are often discriminated against when searching for housing. be it therefore resolved that the veteran services director shall have the authority to offer available funds to entities that choose to rent to qualified veterans. Be it further resolved that this be discussed with the veteran service director and the city's legal representation and committee. It looks like this has been done and we have a report out from the um resident services and public engagement committee uh here to amend uh the revised ordinances chapter two administration article four officers and employees division seven director of veteran services there are some minor amendments to um add pronouns, all the pronouns in this ordinance were just he and this adds she on her. And then also under section, creates a new section, section 2-765 called housing incentives. which says the directive of veteran services may in coordination and in the sole discretion with an in the sole discretion authorization of the mayor and subject to the available appropriation and compliance with applicable legal considerations including and not limited to general law chapter 30 b which is our procurement law partner with a non-profit organization which may offer cash incentives up to $750 annually to landlords who offer rental housing to qualified veterans. And then it amends the reserve section number to reflect the addition of the new section. I will go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. So we do have motion by Councilor Leming to waive the readings and approve this ordinance to be ordained this evening. We do have Director Shaw here. Before we move to more presentations, if you'd like to share anything about this proposal and how you got there and what you'd like to be able to do in your office, I think that would be really great. And thank you for working with us on this.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much director. Do we have any questions by members of the council? Seeing none, there is a motion to waive the three readings and approve. I'm going to go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Per the state law, we can only I'll waive the three readings and ordain in one meeting if there is no objection. Is there any objection from any Councilor to waive the three readings and ordain these changes tonight? Seeing none on the motion of Councilor Leming, seconded by Vice President Collins to approve this ordinance and ordain it and waive the three readings. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none of the negative. The motion passes. Thank you so much for working on this, and I look forward to you to be able to do this.
[Zac Bears]: All right, we will move to 25013, a resolution to discuss policy changes in the building department, be it resolved, offered by Councilor Scarpelli, be it resolved that the city council call for an emergency meeting with the mayor and her administration dealing with the halt of overtime for the building department, whereas the building department and building inspectors have legally and historically been called to any call with the fire department or to incidents dealing with building structures and that they were recently informed they will no longer be involved in this process after business hours, be it further resolved that we request sorry, be it further resolved that we request that the mayor apply with guidance with what department will be overseeing this task, and whereas public safety is our first priority, be it further resolved that we request that the mayor bring in state past practice in dealing with these emergency response processes, and whereas we have learned that the former building commissioner has moved on to another community, be it further resolved that the city council receive a report on why he's still being paid by the City of Medford. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli. I'll also note that we did receive a communication from the Mayor and the Mayor is present on Zoom along with the Chief of Staff. Councilor Scarpelli. Sorry, I got to turn you on. My bad. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Mr. President. Thank you. We did also, since you raised it, we did receive a communication regarding the drug testing at the DPW. Do we have a Deputy Commissioner French on Zoom? It looks like we might. I'm happy to unmute you if you'd like to read the email that you sent to us into the record, and then given the discussion we do have the mayor here, and I'd recognize the mayor after that, but Deputy Commissioner, if you want to share that information with us.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, thank you, and thank you for being here.
[Zac Bears]: I think we also have the chief of staff and the acting fire chief with us as well.
[Zac Bears]: No worries, we can give you a second.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I believe Scott's looking for his.
[Zac Bears]: I think he just found that he's going to read it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, deputy commissioner. Councilor, I'm gonna recognize the mayor or the DPW commissioner, whichever one would like to speak next. I see the mayor, and I'll recognize the mayor. Thank you for being here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone else from the administration who would like to say anything, Madam Mayor?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. And I will move to questions and comments from members of the council. We'll start with Councilor Scarpelli. Please, everyone else, use the request feature on your microphones.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we have the commissioner, the deputy commissioner of DPW, the chief of staff, I think, and the mayor still, and the HR director, and I think we might have the acting fire chief as well.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So we had questions for the administration. If I mischaracterize, I'm just going to repeat them just so that we get them across. We had one for DPW. director and deputy commissioner and deputy commissioner, which was what was done about drug issues in the DPW before the drug testing occurred.
[Zac Bears]: Was the policy followed? And I see the mayor's hand on that. And then I had another question that we'll go to that after, but I'll go to the mayor and then if the commissioner or deputy commissioner wanna follow up. Madam Mayor.
[Zac Bears]: I'll recognize Commissioner McGivern, DPW Commissioner McGivern.
[Zac Bears]: deputy commissioner, if you could add to that and also the follow up question of did anybody test positive?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor. Probably one second. You're recognized.
[Zac Bears]: But the- Thank you, Mr. Deputy Commissioner. And just I'd like to remind everyone to please let me recognize them so that we don't get into a back and forth. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'm recognizing you, Deputy Commissioner, if you could answer now.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, we had one other question. I believe Councilor Scarpelli, you wanted to ask why former Commissioner Forty is still working for the city. Correct, yep. I don't know if the mayor wants to answer that question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And then also, I just want to know if any other councilors have questions, please let me know. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Um yes, Councilor
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Please direct your comments to the chair. Thank you. to go back to the- We'll go to the podium in a second. Is there any comments by members of the council? Seeing none and seeing nothing from the city staff, I will go to the podium for public participation. Mr. South, there was someone behind you. I'd like to take people in order. Okay, if that's all right with you. And we had a hand on Zoom, so I'll alternate. We'll go name and address the record and you have three minutes, Mr. South
[Zac Bears]: The hand on Zoom has gone down, so we'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: And I'll always stand by them. Thank you, Mr. Young. Deputy Chief, we went about double time there. So I appreciate it. gave you a little extra time, but we're just going to move to move on. But thank you for the comment.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to the chief of staff and then I'll go to you, Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you. Chief of staff Nazarian, name and address record. And actually, Madam Chief of staff, before you go, Mr. Young, we're not deciding on this policy as a council tonight. I just wanted to, you know, Whatever we vote tonight doesn't actually change what the mayor or the administration chooses to do or the policies that they set. We don't have the ability to set the policy, but we can ask questions, which is what we're doing. Thank you. Madam Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli. Stay young if you can, because that- I don't want to get into a back and forth. It's not the purpose of public participation.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to Councilor Scarpelli, then I'll go to Vice President Collins, and then we can come back around to the rules. We can give another minute after everyone else who wishes to speak in public participation has spoken. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this issue from the public who has not spoken yet? Seeing none, unless Councilor Collins, do you want to go or do you want to go finish public participation? We can go back. We have one minute, Deputy Chief.
[Zac Bears]: I will Madam Chief of Staff, I don't know if you want to talk about what the policy is when neither commissioners available.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. I'll go, we'll finish the public participation. I'll go to the podium, name and address the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there any further comment? I'll go to the chief of staff.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. Any further discussion by members of the Council on this item or any further public participation? Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Collins, if you have that in writing, could you submit that to the clerk? Councilor Scarpelli? Could you read that again, Councilor Collins?
[Zac Bears]: And just to be clear, we do not have the authority to change this policy.
[Zac Bears]: So we have the B paper as read by Councilor Collins and Councilor Scrappelli, would it be fair to say that your original paper is now just be it resolved that we request that the mayor reinstate past practice in dealing with these emergency response processes?
[Zac Bears]: So that's the B paper and the A paper. Any further discussion by members of the council on either paper? We'll have public participation. Go to the podium, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Danielle, if you don't mind, I actually have a question for you for a second. Again, the council doesn't make these determinations. I understand. But I want to just clarify for my own understanding. Right now, a call would go out through dispatch. The building commissioner or the former commissioner, if the building commissioner is not available, would answer. And they would make a determination about what their staff would do. And the prior policy was that the staff themselves would make a decision about who would go out to this, if they would go out to the site or not.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: Right. OK. And so you would, I guess, in the past practice, you would call the individual cell phone number of one of the inspectors.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I'm just saying, it sounds like what the administration is trying to change to say, that the call goes to the building commissioner and then if the building commissioner makes a determination, that's the chain of command to the people who work for the building department.
[Zac Bears]: But my point being that the building inspector is just changing who's making the determination.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just saying. To be honest, we're coming to this body that has no authority to do anything about this.
[Zac Bears]: And the administration is basically, it seems to me the administration has said, we would like a different, we want the building commissioner to determine instead of the individual building inspector to determine when to go out. And it sounds like there's, that has been a change that has caused some issues that some people are saying has caused some issues that need to be worked out. to be frank, it's the prerogative of the mayor if the mayor wants to say this is the person who makes that decision. Now, it doesn't mean that that doesn't mean that the process is working perfectly. And like, I just want to say like, it sounds like some communication needs to happen or like things need to be adjusted. But just to say that there are two options, and the option is that only the building inspector can decide to go out whenever they want, or the mayor's way is working perfectly. I don't think either of those things are absolutes. So I'm not comfortable myself right now saying we must go back to the old system. It sounds like there's some sort of disagreement internally or lack of communication internally that's going on within the executive branch and the people who work for the city that I agree like we would like to get more information on and understand how it's worked out. But I just don't think this is as easy as to say, There are only two ways to do this. And if you don't agree with this one way, I mean, it's just so far outside of our scope.
[Zac Bears]: I will go. I have a bunch of Councilors, and then I'll go back to the podium. I'm going to go to the Councilors, and I'm going to go back. I'm not sure who went first, so I'll go to Councilor Callahan, and then Councilor Scarpelli, then Councilor Tseng. Councilor Callahan?
[Zac Bears]: Well, can I do that right before we vote?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Collins, could you read the B paper, please?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Go one minute, Mr. Young, Deputy Chief. You want me to turn on your microphone?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Mr. Fiori, name and address for the record. Three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Go to the Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do you want me to go to public participation or do you want to go? I just want to clarify.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Kiley and Councilor Collins accepts the amendment. Mr. Staub, since you spoke once, you can speak one more time for one minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, any further discussion? I would remind all my fellow Councilors that they can call the question on any question at any time. All right, so we'll start with the B paper as amended. The B paper by Vice President Collins as amended by Councilor Callahan and seconded by... Is there a second on the B paper? Councilors saying... Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 16. If I remember one negative, the motion passes. On the A paper by Councilor Scarpelli as amended by Councilors.
[Zac Bears]: That was the B paper by Councilor Collins. Five in the affirmative, two in the negative. The motion passes. On the A paper by Councilor Scarpelli as amended by Councilor Scarpelli and seconded by. Is there a second? on the second, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. As amended to read, be it resolved that we request the Mayor and State pass practice in dealing with these emergency response processes. A, sorry, I said A, right?
[Zac Bears]: That's the A paper.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli as amended by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: No. 1 in the affirmative, 6 in the negative. The motion fails. Hearings 24514, amendment to the special permit for signs 3850 Mystic Valley Parkway, Meadow Glen. This is a public hearing that is continued from December 17th, 2024. I'm opening the public hearing. Do we have the proponent for this project? We do. Thank you for staying with us. Councilor Scarpelli is the chair of the subcommittee on licensing permitting and signs. Let me just recognize you microphone.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Pending the motion to approve, I've reopened the public hearing to anyone who'd like to speak for, against, or in any other way about the project. We have someone at the podium. Please provide your name and address, and you can share if you're in favor of the project. And it looks like you have a presentation. If you'd like to make it at this point, we'd happily entertain it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. The floor is yours.
[Zac Bears]: You can abbreviate the reading. We have a copy.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: All I can say, sir, is my preference was that we took this agenda in order.
[Zac Bears]: And sadly, I am not able to make motions, so here we are. It sounds like Councilor Scarpelli has reviewed and has made a motion to approve. There's seconded by Vice President Collins. Are there any questions by members of the council regarding the signed proposal, which is a special permit to overturn a denial? An amendment, sorry, an amendment to an existing special permit. My apologies. Seeing none, is there any discussion or any other public comment by members of the public? Seeing none in person or on Zoom, I'm declaring the public hearing closed. On the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I've been affirming the negative motion passes. Thank you very much. Sorry about that. Thank you. Happy New Year.
[Zac Bears]: Petitions, presentations and similar papers. 25-010 petition for a common Vixor license by the establishment located 175 Rivers Edge Drive, business certificate 201. We have the petition, fire department, building department, health treasurer, state tax number, workers comp form, letter of compliance, police and traffic in front of us. Councilor Scarpelli, chair of lights to Birmingham signs. Is there anything you'd like to add?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Collins and then Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Give me one second. And if you could just provide your name.
[Zac Bears]: Um, and just so I have your name for the record. Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Two questions, if you don't mind. No, go ahead. Or Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Just, are you keeping the, there's kind of a back room that was, you could use for kind of private function, is that what you're doing?
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And what kind of food will you guys just- Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And any live music?
[Zac Bears]: As the son of a live musician, I won't hold it against you.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Well, um, any further questions by members of the council or any comments by members of the public on this item? Seeing none, we'll take a vote, but I expect that it will be a positive vote. Um, and we wish you best of luck, um, on the motion of council vice-president Collins, seconded by councilor Scarapelli to approve. other way around. Motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins to approve. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to table papers 25-011 and 25-012 to the next regular meeting by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Kalyan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Maybe. The motion, no, yes. Motion passes to table six to one. We still have, hold on, hold up. Everybody slow down. Public participation. We're taking public participation. Is there anyone in the room or on Zoom who would like to participate? Talk about anything they want for three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: My best suggestion is ask Councilor Scarpelli. No, no, no. He's not always responsive. And with that, I'm going to recognize.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, mine are short.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to recognize Councilor Collins the Councilors are vice president.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think personally that, I'll go to Councilor Leming, but that's just what enabled filibustering to obstruct. Councilor Leming. Motion to adjourn. On the motion to adjourn, seconded by, I certainly wouldn't have a mind by saying this item is over now, so that we can get to everything on the agenda. On the motion to adjourn by Councilor Leming, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Ms. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it's 60 from the one that even though she passes me and he's adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Test 1, 2. Medford City Council, Committee of the Whole, January 14, 2025. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Six present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. Action and discussion item tonight is paper 24510, the loan order for school HVAC infrastructure and roof bonds. We did discuss this in December and approved for first reading and also requested a committee of the whole to have a further discussion about the project. And with that, I'm happy to recognize folks from the city and school administration who are here tonight, unless councilors would like to ask any questions or make any statements beforehand. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: A report on the MSBA process?
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli. Any further comments by members of the council? Seeing none, I will go to the assistant superintendent, climate planner, and you can call up any of the project experts as is helpful.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I appreciate the thorough presentation. Does anyone have any questions for our representatives from the city and schools or for the design team? I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Would you like to add anything?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other questions from members of the council at this time? I see none. Oh, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Kelly.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Kiley. Any further discussion? Seeing none, this paper is on the regular meeting agenda to be take, can be take. It's eligible for third reading tonight. So I don't think any action is required from this meeting. It was an informative meeting prior to consideration of that vote. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: No, you don't have to do it. I'm saying it's not, we don't have to, like the paper doesn't need to be reported out. All right, I'm seeing nothing else I will just say in terms of financial update and capital update. I have been working to coordinate with the administration around a capital update, especially around the stabilization fund. I haven't received an update as to whether we will get an updated capital improvement plan in full. prior to the budget. I've also been working to coordinate a meeting, which is required by the budget ordinance that we passed last year on the quarter one and quarter two finances. So I am hopeful to get committees of the whole meetings on capital and a financial update for the city scheduled with the administration. Councilor Scarpelli. Thanks. As no action is needed, I think we can just move to adjourn unless there's anything else you'd like to add before we finish.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much, Councilor Leming. I think this is great.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to adjourn the Committee of the Whole by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan. And for anyone watching, we will be meeting at seven o'clock for a regular meeting. Mr. Clerk. Oh, we don't need a roll call. All those in favor.
[Zac Bears]: Opposed.
[Zac Bears]: Test one, two.
[Zac Bears]: Present
[Zac Bears]: here we go. Thank you Chair Tseng. I appreciate the work that you've put into outlining a timeline for the council to consider the proposed draft from the mayor based on the recommendations of the Charter Study Committee. I think that this timeline makes sense. My biggest concern is around inviting the participation of the school committee and the other boards and commissions. So I think having that as our final meeting gives them time to provide feedback. I have heard from some members of the school committee and some chairs of boards and commissions that they would like to provide some feedback on the proposed draft. So giving them as much time as possible to do that, I believe makes a lot of sense. Of course, the mayor has already reviewed this document and made, I believe, changes from the initial recommendations of the study committee to what we see here today. So having that be the second meeting also makes sense to me and discussing all of that, but I just wanted to note that she had a swing at this already. Um, and then I think, you know, our first meeting being discussing the council also makes a lot of sense, uh, because we haven't had a look at this yet. Um, this is our first look and we are likely, I think, to make some changes and amendments similar to what the mayor has done. So, um, I think this is a good timeline. I do have a few motions that I want to make towards the end of the meeting after we hear more discussion around just have some questions, some thoughts around procedures and how we'll get more information and of course solicit that input from the school committee and the boards and commissions. But I'm also really interested to hear what my fellow Councilors think about the draft that we see so far. what articles may need the most attention versus what articles may not need as much. And then I also think, and it's technical, I think we may, there's also a question about article 10, which I just don't think we listed. That's okay. It's just transitional provisions. So I think it's really not actually it basically just says everything continues as this moves forward. But we may want to talk about that towards the end as well. But I think I don't really that seems to be really technical and more just about. the form of how adopting this new charter impacts the existing charter. So I don't think that would be of significant discussion. At least I don't think so. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, and I just wanted to note to Councilor Collins point the composition questions. I think some of the main concerns are going to be the composition and term length of the different bodies that we would discuss the council as our part of it's part of Article two, the mayor is part of Article three, and then the school committee is part of Article four. So those would be happening across the three separate meetings. It's probably, I think, actually good considering that those are certainly major suggested changes being proposed. Also, compensation is across those three. So that's just another thing we're going to have to take a look at, maybe put to bed forever, which I think everyone would appreciate. And I do have some thoughts on feedback. My first thought is that councilors, and it's obviously not necessarily, you know, folks are going to have ideas and questions in the moment, and it's not to preclude that, but to request if folks do have suggested changes or questions in advance, I would move that we request that councilors submit those in writing to the clerk. by the Thursday before the upcoming meeting so that those can be added into the packet for all of us to see and take a look at. and also to request that Councilors submit questions for the call-in center to Chair Tseng by the one week before the meeting, just so we can give them some time to prepare. That doesn't mean we won't have questions in the moment or that answers to our questions may spawn new questions, which I think we've seen, but I just think getting some of that in writing earlier will help the call-in center come prepared, help us come prepared. So that would be my motion to request councilors submit in writing points of discussion or specific amendments on the Thursday prior to each meeting on the topics for each meeting and to submit questions for the call-in center to Chair Tsang one week prior to each meeting so that Chair Tsang can submit those to the call-in center.
[Zac Bears]: you chair saying yeah I have I can just go through my the rest of what I have I'd also make a motion to request that feedback from the school committee and any boards and commissions be received by Wednesday February 12th for consideration for the meeting on February 19th and of course this can be submitted earlier than that if there are topics that boards and commissions or the school committee want to discuss in those first two meetings, but I think a lot of that, I think there's a bunch of stuff about multi-member bodies in the section in Article 9, the school committee in Article 4. So that last meeting seems to be where most of that discussion would happen, so that's where I'm suggesting that motion. And then I'd also make a motion to, well, if you want to consider that, I can do my motion.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. My third motion would be requesting that the Collins Center provide a memorandum, if possible, outlining which provisions of this draft, one, make no change to the existing charter, two, change provisions of the existing charter, and three, create new provisions which aren't included in the existing charter. And that is just, you know, I have a decent idea of that, but I'm not 100% sure. I can email that to you, Mr. Clerk.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, yeah, it's just requesting a memorandum if they could possibly, and I get maybe it's not possible for them to do this, but to outline for this draft, what is not changing what is changing and what is brand new, essentially. Because I think that comparative, you know, one of the reasons we're doing this is because the charter is so opaque. So, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just had one last one and it's just to and I'm just getting this to the clerk.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And I just emailed it as well, but my last request is just that the mayor included an announcement, the upcoming dates for these meetings in like the city of Medford events update online by text and by robocall, just so that folks are informed that these are the upcoming meetings for the city charter process for the council.
[Zac Bears]: I move to join the motion and approve.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk, give me a heads up when we're ready to go.
[Zac Bears]: Great, and we're good on the Medford Community Media side as well?
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Fantastic. All right, then.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think they probably don't need the booth for the Zoom meeting, I think, if I remember correctly. So we should be all right.
[Zac Bears]: All right, well, last meeting of the year. Hi, everybody. Thank you for being here. We'll get going right now. Medford City Council, Committee of the Whole, December 18th, 2024. It's a call to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: present, five present, two absent, the meeting is called to order. There'll be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole at 6 p.m. on December 18th, 2024 via Zoom only. The action and discussion item for this meeting is paper 24-006, which is a review of the 2024-2025 Council Governing Agenda. So we'll take that up. At our first regular meeting, January 9th, 2024, We resolved that Councilors would submit items to create a governing agenda document based on a draft template. We then met on January 24th, 2024 to review the governing agenda and refer it out to each of the committees. And we also made a motion to have reviews in June and December and to review the governing agenda regularly. And pursuant to those motions, we held the committee of the whole, I believe in June, and now we're having one in December to review progress to date, to suggest updates to the document, and to send a link to resident services and public engagement committee to be included in the January newsletter, the updated document. I wanna thank Vice President Collins for working on the updated document with me. Folks can find it at a link that I'll post in the chat. It's also available on the city website, but it is also on the council portal. And this is as of Monday when the agenda went out. So again, thank you, Vice President Collins for your work on this with me. And I think we can either start with any comments or questions from councillors, and then we can quickly go through and review highlights from each committee so far this year and what's coming up for the next year. With that, I'm happy to go to Vice President Collins if there's anything you'd like to add.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. I'll recognize Councilor Callahan in just a moment. And just wanted to note, you know, throughout this project, this meeting, if folks have amendments that they'd like to make or edits, or if they want to submit edits subsequent to the meeting, we can update the document a little further before it goes out with the newsletter in January. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I wasn't going to take credit, and I really do feel like it's a team effort, but, you know, working with my colleagues over the past few years and seeing what I thought and then working with everyone in this council to implement some changes around this document, creating a committee structure that really focused on being functional and effective and aligning with how the city works was a major priority at the beginning of the term. And I think it's gone well. I am going to note some unexpected things that we've learned so far and just ways to think about this going forward. But overall, I'm really just proud of this council and the work that we've done. putting it out there. I totally agree with you, Councilor Callahan. Having this document and being able to point to a single document, yeah, it's a little long and sometimes a little wordy and maybe a little wonky, but to say here's what we're doing and it's actually comprehensive is groundbreaking in my opinion. All right, well, we can start I just want to, I'll do a quick screen share and if folks, you know, want me to do that when they're talking about their committees or any other point I'm happy to do it but just wanted to let people see kind of the form of this document. So, this is the front cover page with all our lovely names on it. City Seal, but there's this great table of contents and luckily our new portal even makes it linkable. You can click into each different section, starting with a helpful document section, and then it's broken down by each of our committees. Our Committee of the Whole, Administration and Finance Committee, our Education and Culture Committee, the Governance Committee, Planning and Permitting Committee, which has been particularly prolific, and as well as our Public Health and Community Safety Committee, Public Works and Facilities Committee, and the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee. And within each of those sections, there is a kind of broken down in three ways, some major projects that the committee is working on, some ordinances that the committee is working on, and then some of the oversight and engagement work that committees do as part of their task. So I'll start with our helpful documents. This is just a great place to find just a few quick links to some of the major plans and things that we reference regularly in our meetings. are not just our committees and their members, but the city's ordinance, the code, as well as the major plan governing a lot of what we're doing around the city comprehensive plan, talking about zoning and built environment and what the vision for the community is over the next 30 years. Housing production plan, how we're trying to produce more housing so that people who live here can stay here and people who want to live here can move here. A climate action and adaptation plan to address the climate crisis, and our open space and recreation plan. And I'm hoping we can get some more documents linked in here in the future as well as they are developed. Our committee of the whole, which I chair, but as a committee of all seven councilors has had a lot of meetings, but mostly those are meetings to review papers from the mayor or to review things that have been reported out of another committee. order review kind of ad hoc resolutions that are coming up during the year. But we did have two projects in committee of the whole term started the tree preservation protection and replacement ordinances and our food truck ordinance. We have held meetings on those this year. Food truck ordinance we are hoping to incorporate some significant legal feedback. We definitely learned a lot about the laws around food trucks and our meeting on that this year. And the tree ordinance we met on in November and the tree ordinances, the public tree ordinance and the tree committee ordinance are awaiting some review by city staff as well as some Councilors before coming back to the council committee of the whole. And then the private tree ordinance is going to be reviewed by city staff and incorporated also into our or at least reviewed by our zoning consultant because that is mainly a zoning ordinance. So that is being, we're taking advantage of the resources that we have around zoning to review the private tree ordinance. And the goal is really to get this done early in 2025 so that we can get these ordinances on the books and update our public tree ordinance and get a workable private tree ordinance in place so that we can stop losing trees and hopefully start growing our tree canopy again. So that's Committee of the Whole, happy to, it's an easy one, happy to pause there and if anyone has any comments or anything they want to add on the Committee of the Whole before moving to the next committee. Seeing none, I will also take on the next committee, which is our Administration and Finance Committee. This hasn't met as much as I had initially thought and it's kind of one of those lessons learned. I think a lot of what this committee nominally is responsible for is our things that we've been doing in committee of the whole. There have certainly been a few meetings on more on the ordinance level. But, you know, we have our annual budget process every year that happens mostly in committee of the whole meetings. And we are now going to be in our second year of an annual budget process guided by our first ever budget ordinance, which is really exciting. As folks noted, there were some dates in the meeting schedules for the upcoming six months around the budget, including getting some of our budget recommendations in early March per the budget ordinance. And we did work on a major project around the Proposition 2.5 overrides. We had our first ever override process this year, and since Proposition 2.5 went into effect nearly 50 years ago, and the passage of Questions 7 and 8 is really significant for our public schools and our DPW. So that's going to be a part of our budget process for the first time this year. working, you know, we have we did appropriate the funds for the DPW sidewalk and street repair crew to bring that back in house. Certainly won't fix every street and sidewalk, but it's good to have a team in the DPW dedicated to this and the staffing restored for this function, which is really a basic essential function. And we have the certainly that we will hear from our Medford public schools, the school committee will be working on implementing their supplemental budget this year and then working on their budget process for fiscal 26. And, you know, our role in that is just to approve the allocation and they approve the expenses. But I know that it's going to be a really impactful year in our public schools because of the funds that are going to be available for them. So that's exciting around the budget. I talked again a lot about the revenue generation project and proposition two and a half. We were able to complete, you know, at least a piece of that project this year around the overrides. And, you know, I think revenue generation outside of proposition two and a half is always a focus of the council, especially when it comes to economic development, as well as just updating our city's ordinances. I really want to thank Councilor Leming for leading on linkage fees, hopeful that we'll be able to meet on updating the fee schedule for the city early this year. That was a big call as well from the council earlier this year, just so that we're not 30 years out of date on inflation, which we have been on way too many things in the city for a long time. I'll just move quickly through the rest. Another project that we talked about was the classification and compensation study implementation. We were hoping to get started on this many months ago, but we have not received any sort of document or really even any sort of update from the city administration on when we can expect to be updating the city's personnel ordinance and looking at this. So I'm going to be checking back in with the administration in the new year on that. And I will go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, our role is really to we have to update the personal ordinance. That's how the so that element of it around compensation and changes to the different classifications. in that ordinance, that would all have to come to us. So I think the next step is we need to see what those recommendations were and then discuss those changes. And I think it's a big project. I think we should take due diligence and time with it. But really, the next step is that we need to have the administration let us know if that study is completed, if there's a document, some sort of implementation recommendation from the Collins Center, and then look at that from there. So, we'll see.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, absolutely, yeah. I'll get in touch with them and let them know it's something we want to work on this year, this upcoming year. mentioned the linkage fee project. We have a home rule petition in at the State House to update the linkage fee ordinance and allow for regular updates to our linkage fees. And I believe also then we would look at an updated linkage fee ordinance. I don't know if Councilor Leming, you want to talk any more about that? You were really leading that project.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you, Councilor Leming for that update. And the Home Rule petition did end up getting submitted Uh, this session so and I actually did have a little correspondence. I'm slightly hopeful it might end up in an end of year omnibus bill or a local, uh, home rule petitions package. Um, so Maybe we'll we'll have some good news on that before January 1st. We'll see Great Um We also worked on maximizing tax exemptions that are allowed by the state to maximize those. I really want to thank Councilor Leming on both the MGL Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 22G, as well as adopting provisions of the HERO Act. That is something we are always looking for to make sure that our residents have the most opportunities under state law for exemptions from the property tax. We have also completed an establishment of a General Stabilization Fund and a Capital Stabilization Fund and Water Sewer Stabilization Fund, which has already been making a difference this year, having access to reserve funds for emergencies and capital needs. Ordinances-wise, we passed our budget ordinance. So excited about that and excited to see it used again this year. We did discuss the commercial vacancy tax, and that is still in committee. Maybe it can come up again in the future. I will go over to Councilor Lemingston, since that was his proposal, if he wants to talk about it more.
[Zac Bears]: So this has really evolved and maybe we should update this, uh, going forward. Yeah. I'll keep that as a note. Mr. Clerk, if you could keep as a note, we want to update this section around the commercial vacancy tax.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing a nod, yes. Next item is the good landlord tax credit. We actually have reviewed this and found that the way that the state law was structured makes this a really actually unappealing credit to implement. So it's probably not something we're going to move forward with, at least the discussions that we have with the assessor, or that this would be of great benefit to essentially only the very, very large commercial property, well, residential property owners, but the companies that own large multi-unit buildings and would not really be of benefit for our two-family, three-family landlords. That was really frustrating to hear. Councilor Callahan, did you want to talk on that?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think that we could reach out to the assessor's office and maybe try to get a written update for sure. Matt and I had a couple meetings, or Matt had some conversations, I had some conversations, and sure, we could pull together some information from those. share that with the rest of the council.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I'm just going to zoom through the rest of it. Oh, go ahead, Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. I appreciate that. No action is being taken at this meeting. Um, this is just, uh, updating the document and kind of reviewing our progress on these different items. And, um, I think it would be good for all of our committees at some point this spring to maybe have a little bit of a. A clean up session at 1 of their meetings as well and, um. Either receiving place on file any papers that won't be moving forward or. Otherwise, refer things to new committees if it seems like they should be going there. For the rest of this, I'll just go quickly. We also, in the future, would like to look at a Community Benefits Agreement ordinance around having a Community Benefits Committee that negotiates with very large real estate projects and nonprofits around what the needs assessment for our neighborhoods is and figuring out how that would work in alignment with our zoning process and also with the Community Development Board. We have a look at a percent for art ordinance that was proposed many years ago, which would create a requirement that 1% of costs would be earmarked for public art projects for large developments. So that's something we could look at. We could also look at that probably in the context of our zoning project. President Morell and I proposed looking at paid family medical leave for our city employees. I think that's something I really want to talk about in our budget cycle this year to see if that's a possibility, as well as extended illness leave bank. And then beyond that, the committee has advocated for pilot legislation requiring large nonprofits like Tufts University to pay a fair share in property taxes, as well as our general review of the city's finances. We do receive monthly warrant articles and regular financial updates and, um. Reviewing the city ordinances as named here as needed. I'll go to Councilors are and then Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: So the enabling, the city council is the authority to vote to implement the program. City council by majority vote can enter into the state's paid family medical leave program. It would initially, it would require the city to budget for that. So there'd be a budget impact, which a couple of years ago, Director Dickinson estimated within the $500,000 to $1 million per year range. may also have collective bargaining impacts. So those are some of the questions we'd wanna discuss with the administration if we were gonna move forward with that. But we can vote to enter.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think we'll see that in committee of the whole sometime in the first couple months of the year around the stabilization fund. And I think we may also expect an update to the capital improvement plan, which will be an even longer outlook as well.
[Zac Bears]: You got it. All right, I'm going to turn it over. Well, the next committee was education and culture committee. That's Councilor Scarpelli as the chair who's not present. I don't think this committee met this year. It had a couple One item looking to identify public internship opportunities for students that Councilor Tseng has been proposed and wanted to work on. And I will on this 1, I will recognize guest on for public participation. 3 minutes.
[Zac Bears]: So that, uh, there was a vote to revert that to, um, uh, essentially it was reverted back to the city for use for ARPA related purposes. Um, uh, the mayor, we would have to talk to the mayor about, uh, exactly specifically how it's going to be spent. All ARPA funds need to be encumbered by December 31st of this year per the federal law. The mayor did notify us that about 850,000 of that maybe a little bit more was utilized to purchase a new fire truck that was essentially the city of Lynn had purchased a fire truck. that was not able to fit in their fire stations but does fit in our fire stations and we were able to purchase that truck and that was a really big windfall because not necessarily from a money perspective but from a time perspective because right now it takes between 36 and 60 months to get a fire truck to the city and we're going to get a new vehicle engine. right away because it's already been delivered to Lynn. So I do know that is one item we received specifically that this funding was going towards, and the mayor said in a communication to us when we did the supplemental appropriation vote that those funds would go essentially towards capital priorities and other items in the capital plan so that they'd be expended before December 31st. But the mayor, I believe, is going to release a detailed final reporting on ARPA funding after the after December 31st.
[Zac Bears]: told us in public meetings and committed to, at least in conversation with me, they're gonna try to spend every last dollar that's available. And that's definitely the goal that I want to hold them to. Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate it. You got it. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and there was a communication or discussion, I believe, around the paper itself that there were projects in the pipeline that may have been asked for funds from the capital stabilization fund or another source that instead this ARPA money will be able to go towards, such as that fire engine, which it wasn't, you know, there are several fire apparatuses in the capital improvement plan along with, I think the mayor may have mentioned police cruisers and a couple of other items. There was a written document somewhere in a packet that we received. go to the governance committee. This is alphabetically convenient. Councilor Tseng is also not present, so I can handle that quickly, and then we can go to our last four committees here. But this committee focuses on basically rules, charter, elections. The two projects that really have been worked on or are being planned to be worked on are updates to our city charter. We did have some preliminary meetings beginning earlier this year. some prior to September and then starting in October and November. And we just received the draft proposal from the mayor. So we have that and we will be considering in the new year in January and February and maybe into March some amendments to that proposal. And then getting that to the mayor and getting the mayor to get that to the legislature so that the legislature can pass it. in time for it to be on the ballot in November of 2025. And if the voters were to approve it at that point, it would go into effect for the following election in 2027. So that's another huge, exciting project. I do want to thank the Starter Study Committee and the mayor and the Collins Center. I know there will be some changes, maybe significant changes that we choose to make. You know, we are the the first elected officials taking a look at this after the mayor and, you know, we, it requires a super majority vote of this body to approve and we are the legislative body of the city. So our voice is very important in this project. And I believe we will also, speaking with Councilor Hsuang, who's the chair of this committee, and I believe I'm his vice chair, we will be probably soliciting some feedback from our multi-member boards and commissions, as well as the school committee, maybe some other folks as well, just so that if they want to have a voice as part of this process, as the sitting school committee and boards and commissions, we'll be able to incorporate some of their recommendations and changes as well. All right, I'll turn it over to VP Collins, planning and permitting committee.
[Zac Bears]: 16, so only 16? Wow.
[Zac Bears]: I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I think it'd probably fall under the administration and finance committee, but also probably would end up mostly ending up being implemented in committee of the whole, would be my guess. My best thinking at the time, and maybe Mr. Clerk, if you could put in the report a note that we want to add the residential exemption in to this document, I think that's a really great flag, Anna. Thanks, Mr. Clerk. And I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's a great flag. Councilor Collins, you have a thought on that or?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I think we could, you know, definitely for those resolutions where it just goes to a regular meeting and gets done. If folks want to see that included in here, either as an accomplishment, something that's been completed or something that's initiated a project that didn't go to committee, we could just, you know, get one-on-one email the two of us and we can figure out either if it should go into a committee and if that means we should refer it to committee or we can put it under committee of the whole or we could even create another section for regular meeting items. Council is all.
[Zac Bears]: Got it, great, thank you. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it sounds like in a lot of cases, yes. I just wanted to note on these planning and permitting items, Councilor Callahan, I'd love to work with you. I've had some meetings with Quentin Zondervan and some other folks around benchmarking and disclosure and some other items. And I'd love to loop in with you. I know we're gonna have a conversation in the next couple of weeks. So that's something we could talk about, but I think some exciting things there. So just wanted to note that. And I actually, awesome. I apologize to my colleagues. I need to step out of this meeting. I really apologize. Councilor Collins, if you could take over from here, if that's all right. I just wanted to thank of my colleagues for a great year. I will watch the rest of this meeting for the last committees for the work they're doing. I know so much is getting done in all of them. And there's a lot more that folks are excited to do in the new year. So thank you, Councilors Lazzaro, Callahan and Leming. I apologize that I won't be here to hear the rest of that. just putting a link in the chat for you, Vice President Collins, and you can take a stone, but you're in charge. Thank you. Great.
[Zac Bears]: 24th regular meeting Medford City Council December 17 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. Before we start, this is our last meeting of the year. And I do ask my colleagues for limited indulgence and welcome the crowd for being here as well. I just wanna thank my colleagues for an incredible 2024. It's been a busy year of nearly a hundred meetings of this body and committee and in regular session. And I don't think anyone can say that this council has not been outspoken and spoken its mind on a variety of topics. In January, I spoke about three leadership principles, collaboration, planning, and trust. This council has worked together collaboratively within our committees with the city administration, city staff, community organizations, businesses, educational institutions, and thousands of residents to implement and discuss a clear and transparent governing agenda created and published in February. Tomorrow night we're going to conduct our one year review of that plan and suggest updates for the year ahead and I encourage everyone in our city to join us. I firmly believe that this open and direct approach to governance is foundational to good governance and to trust, and I'm going to continue to lead with these principles in 2025. There's always disagreement, and we've had some tough meetings. I'm always open to meet with anyone, whether that's Councilors, residents, employees of the city and others to hear from them. And of course, this council will always hear from anyone who speaks at this podium under our rules. I'm excited for 2025. Earlier this week, released our January to June schedule. There are 60 meetings scheduled on topics including the budget, a new city charter, zoning and much more. And I really just want to implore and invite the community to join us in the process of building a better Medford together. So thank you for your indulgence. And with that, we'll move to the agenda. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. 24-512 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council commend and congratulate Barbara Kerr for her 40 years of tireless and selfless service at the Medford Public Library. We thank her for her work with our residents and for providing a welcoming hub for our community. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins, and I just want to note certainly to thank Barbara, and I think Barbara would also want us to thank her staff, the trustees, the Library Foundation, which has been so instrumental in the construction of and outfitting of the new library, the friends of the Medford Public Library, and all of the folks who walk through those doors or use the online resources or take out a book or other material at the library has really become so much more than just a place to go and get a book, but it really provides essential community services to so many people in our community, especially our kids and our teens. So just thank you to Barbara and the whole library team. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng, and we will invite Director Kerr for a citation in the new year. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. The records of the special meeting of November 26, 2024 were passed to Councilor Leming. Councilor Leming, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming to approve the records of the special meeting of November 26, 2024, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. The records of the meeting of December 3rd, 2024 were passed to Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli, how did you find the records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve the records of the meeting of December 3rd, 2024, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. When you're ready, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative, none of the negative, the motion passes. Reports of committees. Council Vice President Collins. One moment.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to join the reports of committees by Council Vice President Collins, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: To join. I think we have to read them out.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm in the affirmative. None in the negative. The motion passes. 24-033 Planning and Permitting Committee, December 3rd, 2024. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: on the motion of vice president. Well, we'll take a motion at the end. 24468 Governance Committee, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. 23-055, 24-073, 24-354, Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. 24-502 offered by Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. And finally, Vice President Collins, the December 11th Planning and Permitting Committee meeting, 24-033.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the joint papers? On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve the joint papers, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative and the negative, the motion passes. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to suspend the rules to take paper 24494 for third reading 24510 and 24517. Mr. Clerk, please seconded by seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Shane, would you mind turning the captions on on the in-chamber TVs? Thank you. 24494, Riverside Plaza loan order approved for first reading November 19th, 2024. Advertised Medford Transcript and Somerville Journal, eligible for third reading December 17th, 2024. Is there a motion to approve for third reading? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve for third reading, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Sure. Yes, it's in past packets. It's the Riverside Plaza loan order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven the affirmative, none of the negative. That is ordained for third reading. 24510. presented by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Loan order, school HVAC infrastructure and roof bonds. Dear President Bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the below loan order. By way of some background, the Andrews and McGlynn Middle Schools are in need of extensive HVAC work, as well as at least repairs to the McGlynn School roof. The city has hired an owner's project manager and designer with the goal of conducting the majority of the construction work during the summer months to further the project and keep the timetable for construction In January, the city needs to pre-order equipment, continue to design with the designer and OPM and the pre-construction services of the construction manager to accomplish this, a fundering authorization of about $5 million is needed. In the future, after further designing cost estimates have been finalized, we will likely return for the rest of the cost to complete construction, which is expected to be about an additional $20 million. City of Medford loan order, school HVAC infrastructure and roof bonds, be it ordered that $5 million is appropriated for the purpose of replacing boilers and cooling systems with new condensing boilers and heat pumps, including associated automatic controls, structural and architectural work, electrical work and weatherization at the McGlynn School and Andrew School, and the acquisition and installation of solar panels for a new roof and a new roof or roof repairs at the McGlynn School, including the cost of planning, design, architectural and engineering services and all other costs incidental and related thereto. And that this appropriation to meet this appropriation the treasurer, with the approval of the mayor is authorized to borrow the set amount pursuant to chapter 44 section seven subsection one of the Massachusetts general laws or pursuant to any other enabling authority, and to issue the bonds or notes of the city therefore. and further ordered that the treasurer is authorized to file an application with the appropriate officials of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Commonwealth to qualify under chapter 44A of the general laws, any and all bonds of the city authorized to be borrowed pursuant to this loan order and to provide such information and execute such documents as officials of the Commonwealth may require in connection therewith. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. We have Director Hunt and Assistant Superintendent Cushing with us tonight to further discuss the project. do you have a presentation before we move to questions from the council?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And just to confirm the school committee did discuss this last night and there was a vote of the school committee.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. With that, I will go to the council for questions and further discussion. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Before I recognize Councilor Collins and Councilor Callahan, I do just want to note on the ARPA funding that has to be encumbered by December 31st. And we did receive a communication from the mayor at a large chunk of that 800,000 plus dollars that we were able to buy a fire engine from the city of Lynn. So there's a new fire engine coming through that money. So a large chunk of that money has been appropriated. It does have to be encumbered by the end of the year. I'll go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Tom. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I'll go to Vice President Collins. Oh, sorry, Mr. Cushing, then Vice President Collins and Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Cushing. I don't think anyone's excited for the 30 percent cost increases we're all about to see. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Council Vice President Collins has motioned to approve for first reading and to schedule a committee of the whole in early January prior to third reading for a more in-depth presentation. Is there a second on that motion? Second. Several. I'll go with Councilor Lazzaro and then I will go to Councilor Scarpelli for further discussion. Yeah, I'm just gonna go to Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins as amended to request a committee of the whole in January, please wait, thank you. On the motion of Vice President Collins to request a committee of the whole and also amended by Councilor Tseng to request the slides be shared with the council by email and also that councilors can submit questions. Should they submit them to you Director Hunt and Assistant Superintendent Cushing directly? Great, thank you. Vice President Collins, do you have anything further? Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and I know you guys wanted to maybe respond or answer any further questions. I just wanted to note that this project has been on the radar. It was in a previous capital improvement plan, and it was one of the reasons for the question six vote, because it was a large project that came up. The proposed question six did not succeed, but it was why it was on the ballot.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Hunt. Any further questions by members of the Council for Director Hunt, Dr. Cushing, or for Director Dickinson on Zoom? Seeing none, we'll go to open this up for any public comment. You can either show up at the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. This is only for this paper. If you have comment on this specific paper. Seeing no hands on Zoom, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I believe the materials are available in the school committee packet from last night. I'll defer to Director Hunt.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Director Hunt, do you have an answer to that question? Or Mr. Ellis?
[Zac Bears]: You need to speak into the microphone. Sure.
[Zac Bears]: But it's on the school. It was considered by the school committee. It's on the school website.
[Zac Bears]: But it will be posted on the Medford Public Schools website.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Cushing. Is your email pcushing at medford.k12.ma.us? It is. All right. Any further public comments, name and address for the record please you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: My understanding is a feasibility study was conducted, and I'll leave the specifics to Dr. Cushing.
[Zac Bears]: It sounds like it's fair to say that maximizing the lifespan, minimizing the cost, and maximizing the efficiency of this project has been the touchstone of the feasibility study and the design process. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no hands on Zoom, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: My understanding, and I'm sure Dr. Cushing and Director Hunt can add to it, is that federal money has been used up until this point to fund the process up until this point, the federal ARPA money that came to the city. and there's not really private grants out there for this kind of project. And also I believe it was presented to the school committee that the MSBA was approached and they said that this project wouldn't apply under the MSBA, but.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Dr. Cushing.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Hunt. Any further questions from members of the Council? Any further comment from members of the public on this item on the loan order for the school HVAC project? Seeing none, on the motion of Vice President Collins, as amended by Councilor Tseng and seconded by Councilor Lazzaro to approve for first reading. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. Paper 24 slash five one dash 517 water and sewer capital stabilization fund appropriation request, dear President Bears and members of the city council I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following appropriation from the water and sewer capital stabilization fund lead line replacement rebate program. $100,000. As your honorable body knows, the water and sewer capital stabilization fund presently has a balance of $2 million. This was from retained earnings and appropriation from a stabilization account requires a two thirds majority vote of the City Council. DPW Commissioner McGivern is present to answer any questions. Thank you for your kind attention. This matter respectfully submitted Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. We have Commissioner McGivern, I believe, on Zoom. Did you make him a co-host, Mr. Quinn? Yes. Thank you, Commissioner McGibbon. You should be able to unmute. And if you want to share anything about this project before we go to questions.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I'm going to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public on the lead line? Oh, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none on the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative done the negative. The motion passes. Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: While under suspension, Councilor Scarpelli has called papers 24-518 and 24-519. Is there a second?
[Zac Bears]: On the second by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, having the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. 2-4-518, offered by Councilor Scarpelli, be it resolved that the City Administration report back to the Council on the following information. costs associated with terminating the superintendent's contract, any communications, correspondences, meeting minutes, records, and reports regarding the separation, anticipated costs of the superintendent search committee, and interim appointment, be it so resolved that the finance director appear before the council to articulate a plan to restore our dropping bond rating, be it so resolved that the city administration cease and desist the use of private investigators to follow and harass employees, utilizing contractually afforded leave benefits, Be it further resolved in the city administration report back to the council with the identified line in the budget where we are paying private investigators and a complete financial report from the start of this practice to the present and be it resolved at the city administration report to the council, the cost associated for the drug testing of questionable drug testing of our DPW staff and a report outlining the reasons for these tests. Be it further resolved the council request to move to executive session if these issues are confidential. I'll recognize councilor Scarpelli and also note that I do have a response from the mayor which I will read after your presentation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I have two documents from the administration that I'll read, and then I'll go to members of the council, and then we can go to public participation. First, I was on the bond rating we received a message from the mayor. Hello President Bears and city council members after a great deal of preparation and bond rating call last week. I'm pleased to report that our a three bond rating was reaffirmed by Moody's financial services company upon receiving updated documentation related to our fiscal year 23 audit. As you're likely aware the AA3 rating is regarded as a quote high grade rating and per Moody's analysis the city is in line for an elevated credit rating in the future. You can read about Moody's outlook on the city's financial health and borrowing strength in a press release on the city website. While this is welcome news it comes with opportunities for us to shore up our financial reporting operations and strive to increase our rating in the future. If you have any questions please feel free to contact my office. We then also received a message regarding Council Resolution 24518, which is what we're currently considering. The mayor said, hello, President Bears, I wanted to provide some insight on Council Resolution 24518. Quote, my responsibility as mayor is to the residents and taxpayers of the city of Medford. When I receive allegations from multiple parties alleging various employee matters, including potential misconduct, fraud, et cetera, I believe our community expects that I investigate these allegations to the fullest extent possible. Additionally, depending on the specific nature of the allegations at issue, our human resources department does not have the bandwidth to undertake investigations that are broad in scope or are too cumbersome that such efforts would impede daily office duties and responsibilities. Also, as it relates to school items, please refer all school matters to the school department. With respect to the portion of the proposed resolution pertaining to drug testing, this is a confidential personnel matter and due to individual privacy considerations, we cannot comment. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Brianna Lugo, current mayor. Yes. Any and if any other Councilors, please, you know, just signal if you'd like to speak. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: It says, as it relates to school items, please refer school matters to the school department. That's what the email says. So we can send requests to the school.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further questions or comments? Councilor, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments from members of the council? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: I'll go to Councilor Tseng and Councilor Callaghan. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callaghan.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Yeah, we can take that up when we move to the voting if that's okay so we can hear just since it was presented as one, I think it's fair to hear it as one.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the council? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation on this item. We'll take alternating public participation at the podium and on Zoom. Please raise your hand on Zoom if you'd like to participate. We'll start at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. It's all one item, so whichever items were included in that
[Zac Bears]: You have one minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. That's time. And we went two minutes over.
[Zac Bears]: I'll let her finish her sentence, but I just want you to acknowledge the time. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just want to acknowledge, I know you were speaking for a number of people. We do have rules. I did extensively go beyond those rules to hear the comment. That's going to be the one time that I do that tonight on this matter. If there are other people who would like to speak, there'll be a three minute time limit.
[Zac Bears]: You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. If you could place them on that desk over there.
[Zac Bears]: If you could please place them on the desk over there. Thank you. Councilor, you can place them on the desk over there. Thanks. Sure. Do we have any other public participation on the matter? Seeing none on Zoom. Okay. Name and address for the record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You have your time, I'm waiting for you to.
[Zac Bears]: You are allowed to make a public comment, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: No, it doesn't, it means that you have three minutes to share your perspective.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, it's not made up. Any further public comment? Oh, you relinquished the chair. You relinquished the podium. You relinquished the podium. You walked away from the podium. If you'd like to speak again, you can speak after anyone else who'd like to speak. Thank you. Thank you. Please follow the rules. It's how we maintain decorum and have civil discussion. It's fun, right? So fun. Any further public comment. Any further public comment we'd like to have here.
[Zac Bears]: You have 30 more seconds.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna just reiterate how the process works here. What has been described is not something that I would be comfortable with as a person, my role as the chairs. I shouldn't even be saying what I'm saying right now, till we've heard from the public till we've heard from all the Councilors until we that's that's the rules of this process are here, so that we can hear from the members of the Council I'm chairing the meeting. We can hear from members of the public under the rules, and then we can make comments. We've heard a case has been made. Folks have had an experience and said they had an experience that they felt very uncomfortable and felt was unjust. We've heard that. We have a short response from the mayor. I'm going to guess that most of the people behind this rail would like to learn more about what happened. And also just to be honest and direct, our role in this process is we do not, I am not the boss of any employee in the city. No one behind this rail is the manager of any employee in the city, except for this person right next to us is the only person in the city who works for the city council. Everybody else who works for the city of Medford works for the mayor of Medford or the superintendent of schools of the Medford public schools. So that's the role that we play here. I'm sure many of us would feel dismayed and feel that the experience that was described by the representative was not something that they would want to go through. I think everyone in the crowd would probably say the same. Now the rest of the facts that come out of that. We don't know all the answers. We just have what has been presented so far. And our action simply would be to say, we do not like that you did that mayor. When we talk about accountability for the mayor, that happens at the ballot box every two years. And that is how she's held accountable. Beyond that, there is nothing in the city charter, the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, federal law that empowers this council to order the mayor to not do what she did. The union has filed a suit, as is their right, on behalf of their members, disputing what happened. Individuals filed the suit. Thank you. Then the individuals filed the suit themselves. Thank you. And the representative presented it. I assumed that Teamsters Local 25 represented, but the members have filed suit. That's their right. Beyond that, their recourse is we can hear facts here. We can hear statements made here. People can speak at the podium and the Councilors can look for additional information, but that's why we're having the discussion that we're having. And no one behind the rail is obligated at this point to say, their opinion, whether they feel like they have enough information to make an informed discussion, all I can say is that the experience that was described is not something I would want to experience, and I'm sure we all would like to find out more information about why it happened and to make sure that whatever recourse is available to the people who experienced it is there. Thank you. And one of the reasons that we have rules is so that we maintain decorum and that I can explain the process and what this council has the power to do and not do. So I appreciate that. I'll go to Zoom and then we'll come back to the podium. On Zoom, we have Nadeen. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Nadeen, we can hear you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Um, we'll go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. Mr. Castagnetti, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I believe the representative from Local 25 said that a needle was found, an unused needle was found in the bathroom at the DPW facility.
[Zac Bears]: I do not have information. I mean, I don't have that information. Um, all I have is the statement that we received from the mayor, their resolution by the Councilor and what we've heard at the podium.
[Zac Bears]: I was, I've heard from the representative that it was at, uh, the DPW bathroom.
[Zac Bears]: At James street.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the public? Name and address for the record. You have three minutes, Nate, and I'll wait till you get to the phone.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Martin. In terms of the specifics, I mean, it sounds like this is going to be litigated and evidence will be presented on that litigation. Any further public comments? Seeing none, I will go to Councilor Callahan and then Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Leming. Councilor Callahan. Oops, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just going to take the discussion that's on the table and then we can take any motions. Go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: I would just note that we have received dozens of warrant articles, multiple reports about the legal costs paid out by the city, from the city administration. It's public documents. We can provide them. They're sent to us by email on a monthly basis. The administration can provide them. And the city has never spent more than the budgeted amount for the law department, budgeted in our fiscal year budget. there has been no additional spending or major financial impact on the city beyond the legal budget that is budgeted every year through the fiscal year budget process and that is proven out by the financial documents.
[Zac Bears]: I'm speaking right now. Thank you. Any further comments from members of council? I'm going to go to Councilor Leming. I'm going to go to Councilor Leming. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming has invoked rule 21. I think we have a number of financial items. We talked about, we talked about Hold on a minute, please. Thank you. Cost associated with terminating the school and superintendent's contract. Finance director appeared articulate dropping bond rating. Utilization of a complete financial report. I mean, there's multiple financial items in this paper. I'll read the rule.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just, I'm... Any councillor... I'm going to read the rules. I'm going to read the rules. Thanks. We'll take a look and I can ask for an interpretation. Oh, that's our parliamentarian. The clerk needed. Thank you. does any finance paper related?
[Zac Bears]: Please hold on a minute, Councilor Scarpelli. Please just take a breath. If we would be willing to discuss the financial elements or sever out the financial elements of the paper. Um, the rule is really broad and it's been used incredibly broadly in this council for a very long time. So, um, yeah, it has been several times. Councilor Scarpelli, please. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli. What are you talking about? You have done rule 21 multiple times as well, Councilor Scarpelli. Okay. I'm going to rule that we're not going to invoke rule 21 if we sever out financial elements from non-financial elements of the paper. Is there a motion to sever the paper into at least elements regarding finances and non-finances? Or does the Councilor want to pull back rule 21?
[Zac Bears]: On a motion to question the ruling of the chair by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Ms. Clerk, please call the roll. I'm not sure what the motion is. It's just a... I have said that I believe that there are financial elements to this paper. My ruling that there are finance elements to the paper that rule 21 would apply here. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Sounds like there's two options in front of us. One is I have ruled that there are financial elements to this paper. Um, we could move forward with questioning that, that any of this counts as a finance paper, um, or we could consider the motion to sever prior to that. Uh, that's up to, um, councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Callahan did indicate their decision wanting a motion to sever. Okay. um then uh there's but it was after the second there was already a motion to question the ruling of the chair the motion to sever was was that we would do it after discussion you didn't make a motion to sever you said it was a recommended course of action there was no second there's a second emotion to overrule the ruling of the chair that there are financial elements in this paper that qualify under rule 21 Okay. If they want to reach out to me now, I would be happy to hear their interpretation.
[Zac Bears]: Is there further discussion on the motion of question really in the chair?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I would just note that I am actually operating under legal opinions that I received that rule 21 stems from the charter right. Councilor Scarpelli invoked the charter right in June, and I had to go to legal counsel to discuss that charter right, and legal counsel informed me that the charter right under this rule applies to any motion, order, or resolution under consideration by the council. So it's kind of a catch-22 situation. I don't like it. It's one of the reasons I think we need to have a charter change. And I believe I misinterpreted it last time by being too restrictive. And that's why I'm not being restrictive now, based on advice of counsel. So, we are where we are because this has been invoked multiple times by multiple Councilors, and given the council opinion that I received in July. I believe that under mass general law is the charter that's been adopted by the city. The interpretation that I received from the city's legal counsel was that literally any paper could be postponed by any Councilor until the next meeting for any reason. So, um, huh? Yeah, it wasn't from the mayor. It was from the council at KP law. So, um, We could take a motion on the ruling of the chair, but again, that's the council advice that advice I received from council. I've been on both sides of this. I was too restrictive last time when I ruled something one way, and now I'm trying to go the other way because of the advice I received.
[Zac Bears]: He said that he wanted more information. He wanted more time to receive more information. I don't know if he can speak to it, If we want to go on the motion overall, the ruling of the chair by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callahan, that's the motion that's on the floor. Councilor Scarpelli has not withdrawn, so I will take the vote on that. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: No.
[Zac Bears]: I can't vote to overrule my own ruling, can I? I'm going to vote yes. Actually, that's a great idea. I will vote present. 3-3, the motion fails. So we'll go to the next motion, which is the motion to sever. Is there a motion, there's a motion to sever, Councilor Callahan, do you want to go further into that?
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: So they're divided by topic. The motions would be the first vote would be on requesting those from the school department, the following information, the cost associated with terminating the school superintendent's contract, course communications, correspondence, meeting minutes, records, and reports regarding the separation and the anticipated costs of the search committee and interim appointment.
[Zac Bears]: All right, the second is the finance director appear before the council to articulate a plan to restore the bond rating that was amended, I believe by Councilor Scarpelli. Okay. Okay. The third one is regarding private investigators and resolve that the administration report back to the council that identified line in the budget where we are paying private investigators and a complete financial report from the start of this practice to the present. And then the fourth is the administrative reporting to the council on the cost of questionable drug testing and a report outlining the reasons for these tests. I'm being further resolve the council move to executive session if the issues are confidential. Does that sound right, Councilor Collins?
[Zac Bears]: Is there a second on the motion to sever? Second. On the motion to sever by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Ms. Clerk, please call the roll. Before we call the roll, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli has struck that. So on the motion to sever as amended, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. Motion severed. Or is that 5-2? 6-1. 6-1. Thank you. So we'll take the first one, which is regarding the cost associated in terminating the superintendent's contract and the anticipated cost of the superintendent search committee and interim appointment. Any discussion on that item? I think we can label these 518A, B, C, and D.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion on that item? Mr. Jones, do you want to talk about the superintendent? Is it regarding the bond rating, the private investigators, or the... Sure. Let me just recognize you. Public participation, three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: No, I said that what has been presented to the council and the legal fees paid to outside lawyers hasn't been paid out of the law budget and has not exceeded the law budget in any prior fiscal year. based on the reports given to us by the administration.
[Zac Bears]: It also includes ordinary expenses for settlements. How much is that? I think it's $100,000. Very small, $100,000. It's a quarter to a fifth of the law department budget.
[Zac Bears]: From the discussions we've had and several of them in public session, there are claims paid by insurance that are paid by the city's insurance. Which type of insurance? I would have to look into the specific insurance policies that they're paid out under.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: We have been presented the warrant.
[Zac Bears]: You can absolutely see the warrant articles. What I'm telling you is that inside the warrant articles, there have not been settlements paid in those amounts. So, they're not coming from the city's general fund. Okay. So, where are they coming from? We have been advised by the administration that there have been settlements paid by the city's insurance.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So we have a policy with an insurance company that's paying these out. There are several policies that the city has with insurance companies on a number of issues. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: The premiums for the insurance are paid and there's an insurance section in the city budget.
[Zac Bears]: It's not meant to be a back and forth.
[Zac Bears]: We do literally audited in the city ward articles. Thank you. We do. It's not accurate. All right. Is there any further discussion on the item regarding the school superintendent?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Senna. And I just did pull up the Mass General Law, Chapter 43, Section 22. which was invoked by Councilor Scarpelli in June. I did seek legal counsel advice after my interpretation of that rule, and I would just say again, legal counsel essentially informed me that any member can postpone any resolution, motion, or order for any reason if they want to. It's chapter 43, section 22. He said rule 21. He didn't. He didn't. He didn't. Correct.
[Zac Bears]: I sought further opinion.
[Zac Bears]: I will say some other lawyers disagree with the interpretation of council, but I will go with the interpretation of the city's legal council, even if I don't agree with it. Any further discussion on the motion? Is there a motion to approve? On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve Paper 24-518A regarding the school superintendent's contract, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Gallagher. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. This is now the be it resolved that the school department respond, report back to the council the information of the cost associated with terminating the school superintendent's contract and the anticipated costs of the superintendent search committee and interim appointment.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Three in the affirmative, four in the negative. The motion fails. 254518B. This is regarding the bond rating. Do we want to amend that to something else? You had said earlier, Councilor Scarpel, you wanted to amend that to request a meeting? So this is amended to be resolved that the City Council requests a report on why the bond rating was temporarily rescinded. On that motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one of the negative, the motion passes. 24-518-C which is be it resolved that the city administration cease and desist the use of private investigators to follow and harass employees utilizing contractually afforded leave benefits be it further resolved the city administration report back to the council with the identified line in the budget where we are paying private investigators in a complete financial report from the start of this practice to the present. Any further discussion? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan, could you articulate those amendments?
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion on the item? Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan, if you have more comments, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I don't think we have the authority to require the cease and desist.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion on this item as amended? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Does that sound about right? Great. On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli as amended by Councilor Callahan as seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have any affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes. 24 518 D be resolved by the city of minutes that the city administration report to the council, the costs associated for questionable drug testing of DPW staff and report outlining the reasons for these tests and for the result of the council request to move to executive session. If these issues are confidential. Councilor Scarpelli, then Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So it sounds like the amended resolution is being resolved that the council requests the administration report on the city's drug policy and the cost of drug testing of employees. Right. Okay. Mr. Clerk, when you have that, let me know. Councilor Kelly.
[Zac Bears]: I'll be honest. I do not believe that we will ever receive that information. And I personally do not feel comfortable asking for it.
[Zac Bears]: What are Councilors saying?
[Zac Bears]: I would just note that regardless of any of that, this is very clearly the subject of litigation and the city will reply that because it's the subject of litigation, they're not going to be providing any information that could be detrimental to their case. So if we could stick to things Yeah, great. So we're going to stick to the drug policy and the cost associated with drug testing employees. Great. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by Councilor Callahan, I seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Senator, another negative motion passes. 24-519, be it resolved that the city City Administration give an update on the request of meeting to review the report compiled Medford Fire Department report compiled by the consultants of the City Council voted approve for its funding for the resolve that the administration include Fire Chief and MFD Union leadership to review the report and be prepared to meet an executive session to have a discussion with its findings. Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not sure what the executive session exemption would be. I think we're going to have to consult council on that. I believe we move forward with this resolution. Did we make a motion to request a meeting? We did that that evening. That evening. Okay. That was a motion that we've got nothing back. And this is a motion to request a meeting. Request an update on the meeting requests regarding the MRI report for the fire department.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So, amend to the second session to be that. Okay. Uh the council will, council leadership will speak to the city's legal council to determine if there's a valid executive session. Option. Option. Got it. Okay. I'll go to
[Zac Bears]: Right. Yeah. All of all meetings have to start as open meetings.
[Zac Bears]: All right. So this is a motion to request an update on the requested meeting, uh, to review the MRI report regarding the Medford fire department. And the amended resolution is to, uh, request a committee of the whole meeting and to determine on advice of legal counsel, uh, whether or not, uh, the city council can enter executive session to discuss elements of that report.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by Councilor Lazzaro, as seconded by Councilor Tseng, is there any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Uh, just to clarify, has that not been provided with?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it'll be a public meeting. So you can absolutely be present. Okay. And the report is public record. It was sent to us. I'm happy to forward it to you.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I believe there's any issues with the name tells us have any issues with that. Great. Thank you. Yes, it's still Yeah. I don't think a further amendment is needed. Yeah, no, it's it's public record. It's public document. And you have you have a copy of that, correct? Councilor Scarpelli. Yeah. Alright. Thank you. On the motion. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. I believe the second was Councilor Lazzaro Bennett and Councilor Tseng is the second. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 7 affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. 24490, this is a continued public hearing. We open this public hearing on December 3rd, 2024 in our regular meeting. This is regarding the Mystic Avenue Corridor District zoning. I'm reopening the public hearing now. We did receive a report. This was reported. Recommendations were reported to us from the community development board. So we have Mystic Avenue corridor district in front of us. And with that, I will entertain any motions or discussion from the council before we hear from members of the public in the public hearing. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it is in page six of the packet here, public hearing notices, it's amendments to add the Mystic Avenue corridor district. And we've now have joint advertising of community development board and zoning city council public hearings. So we opened this hearing on December 3rd and it was continued by a vote of the council to today's meeting. Council Vice President Collins and then Councilor Kelly.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And just for clarification, those last two items are keeping in how it is currently in the ordinance. And there was just a typographic error in the final document. Great, I'm seeing a nod from the- That is correct. Director of Planning, Development and Sustainability. Thank you, Councilor Collins. Is there a second on the motion by Councilor Collins? Councilor Tseng? This is for final approval because there's not three readings on zoning. Yeah. Well, technically there's like five readings on zoning. And this is the end of it. There's a lot of public hearings on zoning. So I will go to Councilor Callahan, Councilor Tseng, Councilor Scarpelli. Sorry, Councilor Callahan, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: That's the hearing. The documents were distributed to the council by email and are attached online.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, they were not.
[Zac Bears]: Just go to the, that's the hearing notice. Go under the meeting files. You see them under the meeting files. I'll go to Director Hunt to describe the Community Development Board memorandum. We also do have Danielle Evans still with us at this point. If you want to go to Danielle.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks for sticking it out.
[Zac Bears]: And generally, you're talking about situations where projects would already be undergoing a special permit process or site plan review?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli, anything else?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I'm gonna go back to Councilor Callahan, then to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I would also just note, I don't think that people who are unrelated are allowed to live in an apartment regardless of whether co-living as a specific use is allowed or not. Right. But okay, is that a motion to strike line A8? Yes, thank you. There's an amendment motion to add to the motion of Councilor Collins to strike line A8 from the use table by Councilor Callahan. Is there a second? All right. Is there any, I guess really, is there any opposition to that amendment? Seeing none, that'll be included in Councilor Collins' motion. Any further discussion? I'll go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. As I noted, the public hearing is open unless there's any further comments by members of the Council or Director Hunt. The public hearing is open and we can hear from anyone who is in favor or opposed or otherwise has comments on this proposal. You can come to the podium and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I would just point to the city's comprehensive plan talks about shared vision and values for the future. That's the document where a lot of the zoning comes from. Name and address for the record, please name, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Jamie, if you could get a little closer to the microphone and we're going to turn you up a little bit.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments? Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'm happy to answer that. We're going to be considering the community solar program as the discussion and the zoning project continues. We need to look into some specifics on it, but the plan is to include it. Right now, I'm actually taking some information provided to me from some community activists, providing it to the zoning team that's working on this, and then it's likely that that, excuse me, will be included. as an incentive piece across all of the districts where there's incentive zoning. We just want to get it right. Thanks. Any further comment on this public hearing? Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Uh thank you, Paulette. I just want to note both of those projects were private projects. So, the private property owner decided who they wanted to work with and then they were the ones who submitted the plans to the city and and the city doesn't have any choice as to who we would get to representing private property owners and they are allowed to. petition the city within the zoning ordinance and the Massachusetts general laws for whatever they need to do on their private property. So, so we don't have any.
[Zac Bears]: Only the private property landowner has the right. They have their unlimited right to choose who they want to represent them when making petitions to the city regarding permits, licenses, et cetera. We don't have any control over that.
[Zac Bears]: That's, that's, um, pretty, pretty foundational, um, under the current way that the state and federal laws work for private property.
[Zac Bears]: No, so that would be if the city owned land and was then trying to build a project in these areas, then we would have to go through this process, the bidding process procurement. Zoning affects private property owners. I mean, it affects public property nominally, but most of the property in the city is owned by private entities, individuals, corporations, groups. So when we change the zoning, that changes the laws about what we allow private property owners to do. um private property owners can pick any construction company any lawyer or any designer any architect that they want to make a proposal make a design um and the city just has the process of outlined here like a site plan review process or special permitting process where the city has some limited, in some cases limited, in some cases significant discretionary choice as to what to allow, but we do not control who owns private property and we do not control who private property owners choose to hire to design projects, to construct projects, to make proposals to the city. So, and I don't think there's any law that would allow us to change that.
[Zac Bears]: I know that between the performance standards and the other things that are set in the zoning ordinance, the different boards, community development board especially, and other site plan review and special permit granting authorities will use the power allowed to us by the state zoning law to from these processes.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment? Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: It's all right. OK. It's chicken, man. There's not so much you can do.
[Zac Bears]: It is Councilor Lazzaro's birthday, so let's give a little. And we have a big crowd, but.
[Zac Bears]: I think she just doesn't want any more comments on the sauce.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further public comment? I see one hand on Zoom. I will go to, oh, that hand has gone down. So I will, if there's no further public comment in this public hearing, I will declare the public hearing closed. Any comments on the motion by Councilor Collins as amended by Councilor Callahan and seconded by Councilor Tseng to adopt the recommendations of the Community Development Board and to typos and strike line A8 of the use table Councilor Callahan
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, yes. And I think, you know, appreciate that correction that, There is one of the districts within this corridor, a sub-district that does allow special permit for the drive-thru, that's the commercial district, that is south of Mystic Valley Parkway-Harvard Street intersection and bordering the highway, which tends to be the area with the least possibility of becoming a more walkable area in this district. The rest of the district is really primed for becoming a much safer and much less of a, um strode as people call them which is a very very wide street that people drive down very very fast and is very very dangerous for anyone who's not in a car and quite frankly is dangerous for people who are in cars um so that is uh some of the values that we put in here um i just want to uh note that this is a long meeting um appreciate folks who've stuck around sometimes these kind of major changes get lost in the sauce of meetings like this. That's happened really a lot this year. We've made a ton of progress this year, and this is a really important ordinance that I think, for me, advances values of safe, well-maintained, and climate-resilient streets and open spaces, housing affordability and stability, and a number of other values that I hold and that I know were part of the reason that I ran for office and continue to run. It's a big moment. We have a motion to adopt this proposed amendment to the Medford Zoning Ordinance as amended by adopting the recommendations for amendment by the Community Development Board and the further amendments by Vice President Collins and Councilor Callahan. And that is as seconded by Councilor Tseng. So on this resolution, the first of many to come in this zoning updates project, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's the affirmative. One of the negative, the motion passes. At this point, I would like to, quite frankly, given the late hour, I'd like to run a quick unofficial poll on the remaining items. How many people are here for the special permit for signs at the Meadow Glen? He's gone. So, all right. Is there a motion to table that to the next regular meeting?
[Zac Bears]: It's a continuance? All right, we'll do that. We'll do that and then I'll take my poll. On the motion to continue the amendment to the special permit for signs, paper 24514 to the next regular meeting. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Sure. It's Scarpelli Callahan. You want my job? You might both need to do it.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I've been affirming the negative motion passes. Let's continue to the next regular meeting. 24, 516, Barry's back. Let's take this quick. I think everything's in order. This is common victors license for Mrs. Murphy's. Barry, if you want to talk about the business for a second.
[Zac Bears]: And this is a pub in Medford Square. Correct. A pub in Medford Square. They said it could never happen. Thank you. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Councilor Scarpelli, recognize you on the speaker. Go ahead. Oh, here you go. I gotcha. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, do you have a comment? seconded by or comment by, is there a second?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Collins, comment by Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we're working on that to wait a few months. And I do want to recognize the clerk who rarely speaks but would like to speak tonight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, and I just want to echo that there are a lot of people in this building who have difficult jobs dealing with folks who want things to happen faster and when you hear from the clerk and representing his clerks about someone who was calm and patient with the government process over many months, including tonight. It doesn't go unnoticed.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm grateful. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. Good luck. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: He thought about it. He thought about saying more. Vice President Collins, you're recognized. Oh, you're recognized.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, there's three items left. I'm guessing on the poll of the three items left, how many people are here for the Safe Communities Ordinance and the Community Control Republic Surveillance Ordinance? If you could raise your hands. How many folks are here on Tufts? And how many folks are here on Salem Street Corridor referral? All right, got it. So, and that, if you could just move to take the, let's just get the folks out of here.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, Assembly Member Nunn and negative motion passes 23-055. This is the welcoming city ordinance. Is there a motion to waive the reading in favor of a brief summary from the proponent? On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, once again, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative and the negative, the motion passes. All right, so Councilor Tseng, if you want to give a summary and then we can move into Councilor discussion and then public participation. Great.
[Zac Bears]: It is visible on the screen.
[Zac Bears]: If I could just is it fair to say that these amendments reflect the view of legal counsel to ensure that this policy aligns with federal law while maintaining the intent and integrity of the Of the ordinance proposed and the policy that has been in place through the Medford Police Department for the last eight years?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lemmie. If you could, um, save a copy of this with no track changes and submit a clean version to the clerk for inclusion in the council records, that would be much appreciated.
[Zac Bears]: And also we need it for the advertisement for second reading. With that, I will go to Councilor Lazzaro, then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli, then Vice President Collins. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve for first reading, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. All right. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: So, so, okay. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to
[Zac Bears]: I believe he's been invited, but he can continue to be invited again. I understand that, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Because this is moving for a first reading, there can't be a committee meeting on it, but we could discuss it when it's up for third reading.
[Zac Bears]: We can't hold a committee meeting on a paper that's not in queue.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that whether you do or don't, it's not happening. Yeah, I hear you. I'm just saying it doesn't, there's no extra vote that's needed on it. So it doesn't save 10 seconds. Um, any further discussion by members of the council, like councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the Council? I'm just going to say very quickly that on this and the next ordinance, a very dangerous federal administration with a very particular and specific agenda is going to be coming into place in about a month. And As a council, I think it is responsible and essential of us to act by passing a law that lets the people in this community know that the police of this city are not going to enact an agenda that weaponizes people's identities, people's documentation status, people's very livelihoods. And that is essential. Yeah, there might be consequences. We may not get the FBI grant for, I don't know, whatever, more, we might not get the weapons that come for a discounted rate or something, right? These certain things that the Department of Justice and other agencies send to municipalities. To me, that is a very small cost to standing up for what's right, standing up for our values and letting, again, the people of this community know that they will be safe If they want to report an incident to a Medford police officer, that they don't have to be afraid for their livelihoods and their ability to stay in this country. If they want to be a witness in another case, if they just want to be a good citizen, right? And there's a lot of other reasons too. Folks who are pulled over, folks who are questioned or whatever those might be. They shouldn't also have to have that added fear that they may well not be going home to their kids, because what we've heard over and over again in the last administration, and quite frankly, this administration seems dangerously more competent to implement this horrific agenda, is that kids went home after school and their parents were gone. And that's not something that we should have in this city. With that, I will go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. If you'd like to speak on this item, you can raise your hand on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to switch to Zoom. We'll go to Munir Germanis. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes and then we'll go back to Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will go to Zoom. Name and address for the record. Jamie Tallarita, you have three minutes on this item.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much, and good luck tomorrow morning. I'm going to go to Zoom to the Reverend Wendy Villarola-Padre. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes, Reverend Wendy.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate that. Thank you, Jean. Councilor Leming, do you want to, I really don't think, I would really prefer that you stop sharing the screen. At this point, I personally cannot handle looking at the lines of legal text. If you could explain changes or explain who you've communicated with about those changes beyond KP law, or that we could have a further discussion between now and the third reading, I think that would be my preference. I just appreciate folks dealing with the fact that I just can't look at green line changes at this point.
[Zac Bears]: or nodding yes.
[Zac Bears]: I think Matt, if you could read that sentence and then Jean, if you could read that existing sentence from the existing policy.
[Zac Bears]: Was the language that Councilor Leming read prior to the amendment received late today by KP Law in line with the policy in your opinion?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. OK. I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I think at this point, we've talked through the one I agree with you going forward on the rest of it. It does sound like maybe if someone wanted to make the motion to adopt all of the amendments from KPLL except for that amendment, and then we can do the rest. I think it's working. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, Councilor Collins, are you making a motion?
[Zac Bears]: Give Councilor Collins a floor. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Jean, could you just say the section number for me again? 50-103 subsection C. Thank you. Got it. All right. We're going to go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: This is a welcoming city ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Merritt, I'm just going to give you your time.
[Zac Bears]: We did pass that.
[Zac Bears]: The city can employ people who are not residents of the city of Medford.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I apologize for interrupting.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will just note there are a lot of things that have been legal that have not been moral. in the history of this country and many other countries. And I will also note that I have multiple people very important to me who are naturalized citizens of this country who are very afraid of being deported because the president has said he's going to do it. Or the president-elect, sorry. Thank God for another four weeks. So yeah, I'm grateful that your experiences, that the people in your life who have that identity are not afraid. There are people very close to me who are citizens of this country, who were not born citizens of this country, who are deeply afraid that they will not be allowed to remain here because of the words and actions, promised actions of the person who's going to be taking the office of the president. So, yeah, I like that Medford's not going to do his bidding because I want people I love to stay here. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm sure they'd love to use real documents if they could. I'm sure that they would love to be using real documents if they were legally allowed to. I'll go to Councilor Collins. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Thanks, and we will, but I'm going to say something first. Um, something I've been sitting with up here for a couple hours that I've just want to voice When we talk about dehumanizing rhetoric, when we talk about a dehumanizing politics that is infecting civil discourse at all levels, we experience that here. I really don't mean to personalize this, but this ordinance is one thing. We're talking about a surveillance ordinance in a minute. I just want to say that a member of the community tonight wrote about me in a public forum. If Zach turned up dead, I would not mind it. So that was written about me tonight. And I'm just raising that point, it's not really exactly relevant to the core principles of this ordinance, but it is relevant to the idea of a welcoming city and about just horrifically dehumanizing rhetoric that is pervading civil discourse. So when we talk about maybe not disrupting a public meeting and following the rules and listening to the rules of the chair and making sure that people feel safe to talk to their government officials, whether that's police or city councilors or anybody else, it is a local issue. And so I've stood here for two hours after having had to read that. And I just felt like, quite frankly, people deserve to know that this isn't just about a police policy and putting it into law. It's about some really harmful things that are happening in this community, some really harmful approaches and words and actions that are being brought to the forefront of a politics that I don't think any of us benefit from. So when we talk about division, that's what's dividing us. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins to adopt this ordinance for first reading as amended, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes and the ordinance is moved for first reading. Offered by Vice President Collins. Amendments to the Community Control of Republic Surveillance Ordinance. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins. Would it be fair to say that to summarize these two amendments, the amendment to Section 5079 requires that any records kept by surveillance technologies that are not exempt, that are not required to be kept by the state or local law would not be kept?
[Zac Bears]: And then 5080, that this is amending essentially that it was unlawful for the city.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Is that in the first sentence?
[Zac Bears]: So could you send an amended version to the clerk, please? Thank you. I think they're the same change in both sentences.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve for first reading, seconded by Councilor Tseng, we'll go to Councilor Scarpelli. As amended.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, and I would just note that the CCOPS ordinance exempts CCTV cameras on public buildings. It exempts the ability of our police department to receive data from private cameras, which is what most of the data was in the case that you mentioned. So it actually doesn't do any of that. Councilor Collins. You can't help it. Truth matters, George. I'm sorry, George. But don't do what you're doing. It's just the truth. George, please stop. Councilor Collins has the floor. It's embarrassing.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you on the motion of Councilor Collins to adopt for first reading, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. And if you'd like to speak in your own Zoom, please raise your hand.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I know, but you're not the only one.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Paulette, I hope I can allay some of your concerns just to say this does not ban surveillance cameras, does not ban the police from asking private businesses that have surveillance cameras to provide that information to them. It does not ban the city from having surveillance cameras for a number of purposes. And this ordinance is an amendment to an ordinance that already exists and has existed for over a year and has not impacted criminal enforcement and cases in the city. So I hope that allays some of the fears that you just raised. for, you know, when information goes out there, sometimes it can be interpreted in different ways. I just want to tell you all of these two paragraphs are amending is about the city being able to go and buy everybody's data from Amazon and then use that for some purpose other than, you know, I don't even know what purpose, but essentially going to a company and buying everything that the Internet knows about you. and then using that to try to control your life. That's what this is about tonight. Okay. It's not about surveillance cameras. If you read the existing surveillance ordinance that's in place, it exempts CCTV cameras that protect public property. It doesn't mean that private businesses can't have their surveillance cameras like the hostile in the case recently that the mask down.
[Zac Bears]: It doesn't do anything like that. So that's not what this does. I don't want you to be afraid. This ordinance is about the government and its access to information about its residents and not abusing residents by buying information in bulk to try to use that for some purpose. Who knows what purpose they might use it for.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the public? Seeing none, is there any further discussion by members of the Council? On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng to approve these amendments to the CCOPS ordinance for first reading. Mr. Clerk, please. As amended. As amended. Please call the roll, Mr. Clerk.
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative, the motion passes. So that brings us, I believe, a reversion to the regular order of business. There's two items left. We have whatever is left of the regular order of business, I guess I could say. We have mine, which I can't find right now. And I'm going to turn this over to Councilor Collins to read and control. If you could leave your copy down there, you can use my copy up here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins, for your presentation. I think it really speaks to all of the issues, or at least some of the issues around 401 Boston Avenue. I do know we have a number of residents still on Zoom who wanted to speak to this. I just want to note that tomorrow night is the Community Development Board. The Community Development Board is the authority that is reviewing this application. And I just wanted to also note a couple of things here. To me, I am grateful that Tufts is taking on this responsibility to add housing on its campus. That is something that this community has wanted Tufts to do for a long time. But every project that Tufts does falls under a greater scope of the balance of power between municipalities and large educational nonprofits. That is way out of whack when it comes to our state laws. When it comes to our state laws around site plan, Dover amendment, and what these institutions have to do to collaborate with municipalities and their neighbors. When it comes to the pilot legislation, payments in lieu of taxes and the, you know, five years ago we analyzed the Tufts on its non-taxable property would be paying $8 million. and it is paying $500,000. It's a huge loss for us when it comes to the city services that we need to provide, and the city services that institutions like that consume, both on campus and off campus. So this really does fit into this larger question, which is why a big piece of this resolution is about the state legislation that this body has supported. both the home rule petitions around institutional master plans that we have submitted along with our neighbors in Somerville to ask Tufts and require Tufts to provide a master plan for their growth and development so that we can be aware of that and inform our community about that, as well as the pilot legislation to require a 25% pilot versus the completely voluntary system we have now. One reason I bring up the institutional master plan is that around this Tufts proposal, you know, couple of years ago we had Tufts initially doing the storm proposal at around seven stories and 400 beds. It's now 10 stories and 700 beds and I am actually a fan of more beds I think Tufts taking on more responsibility for on campus housing is a good thing. But I can understand how residents feel that the maybe the scope of the site plan and the height of the building and the shadows are a major issue, or even residents who just feel that the process itself, where it was seven stories now it's 10 stories, how do we get there. And what what's the city's role in trying to mitigate and mediate and collaborate and negotiate in that process. City doesn't really seem to have much leverage. So I really just respect the residents in the area who have advocated for changes to this project. I want to put ourselves on record as supporting those efforts. I also did speak to the mayor earlier today about this issue. She and noted that she had sent a letter and that she supports our efforts and advocacy around this issue, but also that she has had some good conversations with Tufts and is hopeful for an outcome that has more mitigation, more community benefits than the initial Tufts proposal of three or four months ago. That process is ongoing in the Community Development Board. I also spoke with Rocco DiRico from Tufts, and I do have want to just read an email that he sent over. This is to the Honorable President, Zach Bears, Medford City Council regarding Resolution 24-513 to request changes to the proposed Tufts Dormitory project. Dear President Bears, I ask that the following statement be read at tonight's City Council meeting. Tufts University is proposing a new residence hall to be operated by Capstone Management on Boston Avenue. The proposed project is part of an ongoing effort that meets many of the city's and the university's shared goals. More on campus housing, mixed use development, density near public transit, and an energy efficient building design that meets the city's specialized stretch energy code. The university has spent the last four months meeting with neighbors, government officials, the Community Development Board, and other stakeholders. As a result of those meetings, we have added several community benefits to the project. Those improvements include new sidewalks on both sides of Boston Avenue, new crosswalks, new trees, new retail options, and a blue bike station. All these improvements will make Boston Avenue greener, more walkable, and more accessible. Tufts University has hosted three community meetings on this project. At these meetings, we listened to our neighbors, acknowledged their concerns, and acted upon feedback. The university has also agreed to a $500,000 one-time payment to create a neighborhood improvement fund for the neighborhood impacted by the project. We look forward to working with the neighbors and the city to determine the best way to utilize these funds. Thank you for the city's partnership with Tufts University on this project and many other initiatives. The university remains committed to building more housing, revitalizing Boston Avenue, and improving accessibility. This project will have a positive impact on the city and the university. Sincerely, Rocco DiRico, Executive Director of Government and Community Relations, Tufts University. So I wanted to read that to note. That is the position of Tufts University. And Rocco and I have disagreed on many issues over the years, and we are able to have amicable discussions based on the positions that we both hold. And I just say that because, again, commenting on civil discourse, I think, and what that means and how the truth plays a part in it. And I also just want to say I have some honest disagreements. with Rocco, especially when it comes to what is the responsibility of these large educational nonprofit institutions to the municipalities, the cities, and the towns that they call home. And I don't think state law reflects what the best arrangement of that should look like. And I think until we have changes there and until Tufts and cities like Benford are able to work together as partners to rebalance that relationship, it's going to poison processes, community processes around construction, around pilot, around expansion, around what these institutions mean to the communities that they call home. And I think that's what's happened here. I think there's a lot of good that can come out of this project. I think there's some things that could change, and I would hope would change, and there's some things that maybe just can't change, and that's going to be really difficult to deal with. I know that a lot of folks don't feel heard in the process, even, even with everything that Rocco said, people don't feel heard and people feel like Tufts just has so much power that it feels like a bully institution. And that's really difficult. And I don't think Tufts wants to be seen as that I don't think they want to act like that. And I think because, sadly, everyone in our society seems married to the idea that we just have to do whatever the law requires and nothing more, because the law is so imbalanced in Tufts' favor, they may not even realize how they're appearing and presenting to the community. So I really hope we can see some systemic change here. I think this project is sitting in that larger context. But I do hope that our Community Development Board can work to get to a project approval that also reflects as much mitigation as possible. And that in some ways, this resolution enhances the negotiating position of the city to secure additional community benefits. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: You know, it's funny, the name bears derives from Pierce, and this picks it up as Pierce, which is so interesting. We should talk about that for 15 minutes, I think. All right, last item on the agenda, legally required referral. This is our proposed amendments to the Benford Zoning Ordinance, Salem Street Corridor District for referral to the Community Development Board. Is there a motion to first we need a motion to waive the reading for a brief summary. So moved on that motion by Councilor Collins seconded by Councilor let me Mr. Clerk please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have a negative motion passes. So this is the proposed Salem Street Corridor Zoning District. This is the product of several meetings of the Planning and Permitting Committee. The memorandum contains the draft text for the following proposed zoning changes. to amend 94 dash 2.1 division into districts to amend 94 dash 3.2 table of use regulations and dimensional standards to end table. of dimensional requirements to amend the definitions and to insert the section 94-9X Salem Street Corridor District. And so that is the summary of this. There's obviously much more detail here in this document of proposed zoning changes. But what I'm going to do for now is I'm just going to outline the process here. So, um, two years ago, uh, the city released a comprehensive plan that comprehensive plan includes a number of recommendations around updates to the city zoning. Uh, last year, the city council received funding and issued an RFP for proposals for zoning consultant. We were able to choose the proposal of Innes Associates, which is a group that has a lot of done a lot of great work. They are, um, the proponent primary writers of the regulations for the MBTA Communities Act and also we're our consultant on the comprehensive plan. So they have intimate knowledge of the city's comprehensive plan and its zoning requirements. Since then, the planning and permitting committee has held 16 or 17 meetings this year with Innes Associates regarding a zoning updates project. It's reported out a number of items including this, the Salem Street Corridor District. At this point, this is a vote to refer to the Community Development Board this initial proposal. From this point forward, there will be two public hearings. Community Development Board will open a public hearing, followed by the City Council opening a public hearing, which people can be heard. Community Development Board will review this and make recommendations to the City Council, and the City Council will then consider this, consider those recommendations, consider any other amendments, and then take a final vote on whether to amend the city's zoning ordinance. Similarly, earlier tonight if folks are paying attention or were attending this meeting earlier. We approved the Mystic Avenue corridor district, which followed the same process, and this amendment and other amendments will also have several public meetings, generally at least two of the council before the public hearings, followed by at least two public hearings, and sometimes those public hearings occur over multiple meetings as well. So this proposal will go to the Community Development Board for a public hearing in the new year. Recognizing Councilor Collins and then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to refer to the Community Development Board, seconded by Councilor Tseng, I will recognize Councilor Skarpuk.
[Zac Bears]: Is that a B paper?
[Zac Bears]: Sure. That's a B paper from Councilor Scarpelli to hold a regular meeting or sorry, what meeting?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, sorry, what? i guess the public hearing of the council after the community development board that'd be great i will have to check to see if that's possible with the tv station and hybrid meetings any further comment on the resolution or the b paper i'll go to councillor callahan
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, this is just for referral to Community Development Board. If we want to include as an amendment that there's a recommendation to strike A8. All right. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and I would just note that we're 2,500 feet from the Roberts School right now in this chamber. And I would just also note that the proposal that we accepted didn't include the number of meetings that we're talking about here. So I'll see what we can do around the logistics of it. But Councilor Lazzaro?
[Zac Bears]: All right, guys, like, let's just close it up here. Literally the proposal that we accepted.
[Zac Bears]: If I could, thank you. The proposal that we accepted regarding the zoning consultant did not include the meetings that have been discussed. Even though they were in the request for proposal, the proposal that this council, not even this council, the previous council voted to accept, it's just in the proposal. You can't disagree with the document. It's not possible. I went back and read the document. Yes, I did. What do you mean I didn't? What are you talking about? Good Lord. Go. It's just like, if there's no commitment to the truth, I have a duty as the chair to ensure that the members of this body have accurate factual information. It's a fundamental duty of this role. And I will not abrogate it. Public participation. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Please be an adult.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. That's three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further public comment? Seeing none, is there any further discussion on this referral to the Community Development Board? We do have one more public comment on Zoom. I will go to Zoom. Mr. Castagnetti, you have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please. Trying to unmute you, but we're only, there you go. All right, thank you, please. Yes, we can hear you, please.
[Zac Bears]: The donation was accepted. We did accept it. I'm not sure what the next steps are from the administration in terms of lights. If any member of the council would like to volunteer to follow up on that. If not, I will see if I can get a follow-up from the administration and I could try to email it to you, Andy.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And Councilor Lazzaro is going to follow up on that. Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: James D, I'm just gonna have to ask you to change your last name so I can see it before I recognize you. All right, I'm gonna recognize James, Darren. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Well, that's about how this meeting's gone. I think probably not, but there is public participation. Is there any further public participation? On the motion of the B paper of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: On the main paper by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Sagan to refer to the Community Development Board.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, 60 affirmative, 1 negative. This is referred to the Community Development Board. Public participation. We'll take public participation. Is there anyone who'd like to speak in public participation? Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comments. Any further comments under public participation? Seeing none, on the motion to adjourn by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Test one, two.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee of the whole December 17 2024 is called the order. Mr. Please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. There'll be a meeting of the Medford city council committee of the whole at 6 30 PM in the city council chamber, second floor, Medford city hall, 85 George B has to drive Medford ma and via zoom. The action and discussion item today is two four five one one, a caucus to designate the 2025 council leadership. Are there any nominations for the office of the vice president of the city council for the year 2025? well, vice president-elect, Councilor Lazzaro. Oh, sorry, still getting used to that.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Collins has been nominated for vice president, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Are there any further nominations for vice president-elect of the City Council for the year 2025? Seeing none, nominations are closed. On the nomination of Vice President Collins as Vice President-Elect for the year 2025, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Oh, to accept the nomination, I guess I should ask. Vice President Collins accepts the nomination.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, please, Mr. Clerk.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I think that's the next one. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six present six in the affirmative one present vice president Collins is the president elect for vice president elect for 2025. Congratulations. Are there any nominations for the office? No, just wait a minute. Great. Do you want to take the chair for this one? Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, everyone. And just a reminder, we will have the formal vote at the beginning of our first regular meeting in January. And right now we are president and vice president elect for the year 2025. Any further comments or discussions by members of the council? Is there a motion on the floor? On the motion to adjourn by councilors saying seconded by? Seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in the affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes and this meeting is adjourned. We'll reconvene at 7pm for our regular meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I think just to the goal of the outline as presented today was to identify when certain areas of the city we'll see map changes. And then additionally, within those months, we'll also be looking at some of those other things. So I think TDM, basically I'm repeating what everyone else said, but there are topics that are going to be brought up over those five months that aren't included in that outline right now, because we felt like the priority was to try to let people know when the committee would be looking at map changes in different parts of the city.
[Zac Bears]: Just wanted to go through, discuss the process from here on out, just to confirm with everyone. Sorry. I mean, well, right now, it's allowed in C2 and industrial, right? I think it's special permanency to industrial, I think is the current, plus there's basically, you can't be within a certain number of feet from certain institutions, educational, religious, so. Right, that shouldn't be carried through. So yeah, I would say no, it's not. It won't be in the Salem Street District.
[Zac Bears]: But yeah, it shouldn't be.
[Zac Bears]: That was C1, so it was just probably carried over because... Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I think to the larger point, I just wanted to go through the process from this point forward. So assuming that the committee votes to refer out a proposal tonight, that would appear on the regular agenda for our next regular meeting. And I just want you guys to correct me if I'm wrong at any point. That would be referred to the Community Development Board, and the Community Development Board would hold a public hearing where further public comment could be taken. And then that would come back to the city council for a public hearing after a recommendations are made by the community development board, at which point it would require a further vote of the council to amend the zoning ordinance. Is that correct? Yeah. Yeah. Right. So there's two more public hearings after tonight. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Madam Chair. And I just wanted to build off a couple of things. I think too, there was the granular analysis that was done, but also, you know, we're not going, when you look at the apartment one in the commercial districts, the parcel boundaries actually aren't that out of bounds. It's just like the dimensional and the use requirements are kind of nuts. So it seems to me that by and large, that existing delineation was also used partly to outline some of the how far back things go. Of course, with some differences when you have that large apartment building on Paris Street, I think that, you know, was not in that zone. But in any case, I think the bigger question and the thought actually brings us all the way back to the beginning of the meeting. When we talk about walkability and accessibility and placemaking and streetscape. this is one piece of the implementation of the comprehensive plan. We're implementing land use and zoning policy. Emily and others have spoken to how incentive zoning and other elements here, and I'm also going to hopefully say in the future that site plan review processes and other things when things actually, you know, when this zoning actually turns into proposals and turns into construction of new buildings. That is where the rubber will meet the road to a large extent of actually improving the streetscape, getting a large new, say someone does want to put a few parcels together and build something big, not saying that that's what we want all over the place here, but they may need to give more back to the community to improve a stretch of the street. And so in addition to the traffic commission and all the other things that we want to do, a piece of this through the incentive zoning and through site plan review and through just the general transformation and goal that we want to see here over a long period of time, that is what will help us to make this a safer, more accessible, more walkable street. So when we see the implementation of the comprehensive plan recommendations, happening piecemeal because it has to happen piecemeal because we're just focused on the zoning piece right now it doesn't mean it's not that it's not factoring in these other questions around what it means to improve the street and actually this being an emanation or an iteration or an implementation of the comprehensive plan is an important thing to remind ourselves of because we can go back to the comprehensive plan and say, okay, one piece of creating these walkable vibrant neighborhoods is zoning. Another piece is something we may need to be talking about in our traffic commission or be talking about in another sense here in the community. So I just think that's important to note too. There's a great implementation table at the back of that comprehensive plan that is kind of its own. I mean, I can't even think of the word to describe it, but it's intense and this is a piece of that implementation. So I hope we can keep having the discussions and especially have the discussions when we have specific projects that want to be built coming after the establishing of the new zoning ordinance. I think there is that comprehensive holistic approach, and it just doesn't always get implemented all at the same time. And we're implementing different pieces of the comprehensive plan through different processes, and this is just one of them. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Tseng. Just wanted to thank the Collins Center representatives for being there in person. Apologies that I can't join you there tonight. I'm really excited to hear from the Collins Center what the next steps are for the council to take action on the proposals and the framework of the Charter Study Committee. I know that we haven't received that yet, so we won't be discussing their proposals and specifics, but more of what the timeline will look like in the new year for us to consider that. And, you know, I have a few questions after we hear from them, but in general, I'm excited to work with my colleagues on this committee to consider, you know, any amendments to the proposals from the study committee. And then my personal preference, I think, would be to hopefully report something out by the end of the spring to put on the ballot in November that would go. And then if the voters were to approve it, it would go into effect after the 2027 or for the 2027 election. So still a ways away from this going into effect, but really excited and hopeful and looking forward to working with my colleagues over the next few months on finalizing a proposal and getting that before the voters. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, you answered one of my questions around the referendum. My second question is, what is the mechanism that we use for the referendum? Is it technically that the council is placing a non-binding ballot question on the ballot, or is there another mechanism of mass general law that we're using in this case to place a referendum on the ballot?
[Zac Bears]: And is that a bind? And so then essentially the language of that bind.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just want to take advantage of your experience. on any tips and tricks around the legislative process. I know sometimes things can get hung up. Are there any other strategies and approaches that you can suggest? I was thinking, would it be helpful to invite our delegation to a council meeting where they can see us report it out or come to a committee meeting and ask questions in advance? Just any tips and tricks to move this through the legislature would be much appreciated.
[Zac Bears]: If I could follow up, Chair Singh.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Along those lines, would it be possible for us as a committee, as we move through different pieces of the proposed charter and different portions of that, to consult with you on how far those proposals may be straying from a standard or something the legislature is more familiar with?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just wanted to say that's the second compliment this council has received from the Collins Center in as many years on our diligence. So we appreciate that. But I just wanted to also ask, is there any know, maybe I'll leave this for a more specific session, but I just wanted to thank you guys again for being here, for answering our questions, moving through the process, and I really look forward to working with you as we review the proposal of the Charter Study Committee and get to an agreement with the mayor. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Just wanted to move to keep the paper in committee and adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just wanted to say that I think this is a really great start to this proposal. I appreciate its responsiveness to the city's comprehensive plan and the thousands of residents who participated in that process. And I also just appreciate the thoughtful presentation from Innes Associates. I think what we're looking at is an enhancement to the area to make it what we want it to be, which is more walkable, bring commercial in, and just make it a place for the neighborhood instead of just the cut through that many people experience it as now. I just really want to note the comment about the sprinkling of gas stations. You know, not only is that from like a design perspective and an experience perspective, not great, but we've had a lot of problems with those stations over the years as a community being not great neighbors. So that's something to note. And we're also going to see this become high frequency transit corridor with the T96 coming soon every 15 minutes. And this is going to, I think, really respond to that and make this a really improve some of the outstanding issues with the existing zoning. I want to thank Innes Associates for noting the residential blocks remaining residential, keeping historic buildings, as well as noting like the serious loopholes in the existing zoning that would allow like a 12-story hotel right now, which I think None of us, nobody wants that here. So correcting this to match more of the community character and identity while also enhancing it in exactly the ways that we want it to was the goal of the comprehensive plan. And that seems to be the content of this draft. So I look forward to discussing this next week. Also just want to thank the chair for working with the administration on the outreach plan, both for this meeting and for the meetings in the upcoming six month period. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just wanted to note also that when we redid the zoning with Mark Hrabowski, probably most of these discussions were two terms ago. Supreme Court decisions don't allow like there were like family restrictions on renting units. Those are illegal and were removed like for three years ago. So those aren't in the zoning anymore. And I just also wanted to know, in terms of next steps on this proposal. Yes, we'll be coming back next week and having the meeting here. Then this will be referred to a council meeting to then be referred to a community development board meeting to then be referred back to a final council meeting. So there will be three public hearings after the public meeting next week, in addition to the meeting next week, although next week is a great opportunity for discussion. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Everybody's good. Sarah's good. You good? 23rd regular meeting, Medford City Council, December 3rd, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming is absent.
[Zac Bears]: Present, six present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. Thank you. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records. 24496 offered by Vice President Collins, Councilor Scarpelli and President Bears. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we acknowledge and celebrate the Medford High School varsity rowing team on their recent achievement of being crowned state champions at the Massachusetts Public School Rowing Association. We congratulate all members and coaches of the rowing team for their hard work, teamwork, and impressive achievement. I will go to Vice President Collins and then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor say, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. A long, long time ago, I was on the crew team for a season. Councilor Scarpelli was like a freshman on the school committee at the time. But I was much better on the ERG machine than I was on the water. I caught a lot of crabs. But yeah, I mean, it's just amazing to see how far the program has come. We were on the Malden River running out of that gentle giant tent and it was really new at the time. And it's just really great to see what you've accomplished. So thank you so much for being here. Parents, students, coaches, we're really, really excited to celebrate you. And I know this is your second night in this room in a row. So we'll get you out of here real soon. Thank you so much for being here. Open it up, if anyone from the team wants to say anything, you're welcome to come to the podium and say something if you want, share your story.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. All right, if there's no further discussion, we'd love to take a photo with you. Feel free to come up and fill in the center of the chamber here. If you can make it around, we've got a lot of stuff in here. Is there a motion on the floor? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: We need to approve this first.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve the resolution by Council, Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to take resolutions under suspension by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. So you have three resolutions under suspension tonight. Resolution one offered by the president, vice president, Councilor Scarpelli, be it resolved by the city council that we congratulate the Medford Mustang football team on beating Malden in the Thanksgiving game and winning the first GBL championship for the city since 1985. Any discussion on that item? All right, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna go to Councilor Callahan, then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: And our next resolution is about the marching band. So we'll get to talk about them too. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Yeah, and I was hoping we'll reach out, we'll figure out if it's next meeting or maybe in January, which which one we can get people here for but I also just wanted to. really appreciate what the program means year round for students and keeping them engaged in the community and involved, not just in football activities, but community activities, community service, and academic success. It really is something that not just the football program, the crew team, the band, every program that we have in our city, gives a young person an opportunity to be more involved in their community, or maybe helps make sure they stay involved in their community and stay on track and I think that that is really the great benefit of the vibrant. activities that we have arts, sports, music, all of it. And also, I do want to ask Coach Curley, how he's going to replace the GBL MVP and I think now all time Mustang football scoring leader and Justin Marino, it's pretty impressive. So, you know, we can have a little sports fun too. It's got a brother in the fifth grade. It's a lot of pressure. But yeah. All right. Any further discussion on this motion as amended by Councilor Scarpelli to invite representatives from the team or the full team if they can all make it to a future meeting? Seeing none on the motion of Councilor Collins to approve as amended seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. second resolution under suspension, be it resolved that we celebrate and congratulate our Medford Mustang marching band on their NESBA championship. And we'll say that that's from Councilor Lazzaro Callahan. And just wanted to introduce that our marching band also has seen, I was in the marching band and I sat through I think four consecutive four or five, I think it might've been there even longer than that, consecutive Thanksgiving losses, but it was still awesome. The program was still doing community work. Cheer Squad was doing great and we were doing well, but it was at a time, Councilor Scarpelli knows we've talked about it, of cuts where we lost our marching director. We had one person doing the band. And we've seen this really vibrant resurgence over the last 10 years. For better, I mean, thankfully from, but from the parents and from private fundraising to support the band as someone who thinks that it would be great to have the public funds back in those programs that that. All that extra work doesn't go unnoticed, even though I don't think that needs to happen and I think it can be helpful. I'd love to see more support but our band has really seen that resurgence to in recent years winning multiple NSBA championships. And, you know, my senior year we didn't have we didn't march. You know that that's how bad it had gotten we had a field show but we stood in place and we performed it or we performed it from the stands and now you have a color guard, and you have percussion and you have electronically amplified instruments and all these things and new uniforms, all of these things that we didn't have. Yeah, and they're doing the tree and wreath sale to support the Medford Mustang Marching Band as well. So thanks to everyone for letting me go on first on this one, but it is a real passion of mine. I want to celebrate them too and hope that someone will amend to invite them as well. I'm going to go to Councilor Tseng and then Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I'm gonna go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. And I do just want to note part of question eight was about trying to expand access to these programs, especially for kids who are taking the vocational programs, supporting coaches and trying to get their salaries up as part of negotiations and investing in not just the core academics, but the access to programs like our football team and our marching band and our crew team and others. And that is a priority, you know, I think we've all talked about just what Councilor Lazzaro said reminded me, it's important to invest in all of that. That's something that we're going to be, well, the school committee is going to be doing over the next several months as they work on their budget. Any further discussion on this item? Seeing none on the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan on the paper as amended by Councilor Tseng to invite our marching band to a future meeting. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. On the third paper under suspension, we did receive from the mayor a donation acceptance. Dear President Bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves under general law, chapter 44, section 53A, a donation by Andrew P. Castagnetti of $100 and zero cents to be used to install lights on the Mystic River footbridge in memory of Lawrence Larry Lepore, our dearly departed city messenger. Is there any further discussion on that item? On the motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Council Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Records. The records of the meeting of November 12th, 2024 were passed to Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins, how did you find those records? Oh, sorry. Councilor Collins found them in order and moves for approval. On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. On the records of the meeting of November 19th, 2024, passed to Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Lazzaro, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 19-070 offered by Council President Bears, Committee of the Whole report, November 20th, 2024, report to follow. This was, we took back up the tree ordinances. There are three parts of that ordinance, a tree committee ordinance, a public tree ordinance, and a private tree ordinance. Tree committee and public tree ordinance are going to, there's going to be a meeting with city staff and advocates and some members of the council to discuss further that ordinance. Private tree ordinance is being reviewed by the zoning team since it's a zoning ordinance. So that's probably going to either get incorporated into our zoning updates project or at least be aligned with that project. Any discussion on the report. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, councilor Scarpelli. Is there a motion to approve the committee report? So on the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve the committee report, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Refer to committee for further discussion. 24-502 offered by Vice President Collins. Be it resolved that the Public Health and Community Safety Committee meet to discuss technical amendments to the Community Control over Public Surveillance Ordinance. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you on the motion to refer this paper 24502 for discussion by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public? Seeing none, all those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. Hearings 24-490 offered by the City Council public hearing proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance chapter 94. I'm now declaring the public hearing open. This is a hearing notice regarding the Mystic Avenue Corridor District. We have not received the recommendations of the Community Development Board yet. So general practice is that we would continue this public hearing to a date certain our next regular meeting of December 17th. And at that point, we can review the recommendations of the Community Development Board regarding the Mystic Avenue Corridor District. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, is there anyone who'd like to speak in the public hearing right now? Seeing none, is there a motion? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to continue the public hearing to the date certain, December 17th regular meeting. That's the right date, right? That is, yes. That will need a roll call vote. So on the motion of vice-president Collins, seconded by, seconded by councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six present, one absent. The motion passes and the public hearing has continued to our December 17th regular meeting. petitions, presentations, and similar papers. 24-504, petition for a common victualer's license, Medford Donuts Cafe, Inc. We have here on record business certificate, petition, fire department sign-off, building department sign-off, health department treasurer, state tax number, workers' compensation form, letter of compliance, and traffic impact. And I will turn this over to Councilor Scarpelli. We do have the petitioner on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I am attempting to unmute the petitioner. Mr. Silva, I'm gonna click a button and then something should pop up on your screen that'll allow you to speak. I can see you, but I can't unmute you. You have to unmute yourself when I ask. Are you seeing a pop-up on your screen? If you could give me a thumbs up or down if you see it when I press this button. So if you click the unmute button on that pop-up, that should allow you to speak.
[Zac Bears]: Do the councilors have any other questions on this item? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, and we can send any questions through the clerk to the petitioner if needed. Is there a second on the motion? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public on this item? Oh boy. Folks don't know City Hall was closed to most of today, at least till noon, because the heat was not working. So another building that needs some TLC for sure.
[Zac Bears]: Maybe a dead exclusion. On the motion, all in favor, or do you want a roll call? We don't have to? Okay, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes and the common fixture license is approved. Thank you. Sorry, we couldn't hear from you. 24505 petition for a common victor's license for Bunn's House. We have the petition here, business certificate fee, approval from fire department, building department, health department, treasurer, state tax ID, worker's compensation form, a letter of compliance and police and traffic. And it looks like we also have counsel for the applicant, Mr. Chin on Zoom perhaps, or I saw you come on video. I can ask you to unmute if there's anything you'd like to add, and then I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli. Hello, Councilor. How are you?
[Zac Bears]: I will go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public? Seeing none, I just want to say good luck, congratulations, and we are excited to have you filling the, you know, Chili Garden's been a big community anchor, so we look forward to having you in there and doing your business. So congratulations on the motion to approve. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Congratulations.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Motions, orders, and resolutions. 24-503 offered by Councilor Lazzaro, President Bears, and Vice President Collins. Let me get the full language here. Whereas speed is one of the most important factors in traffic safety and crashes that occur at lower speeds cause less injury. And whereas a pedestrian hit by a car traveling 40 miles per hour has a one in 10 chance of surviving a crash, while a pedestrian hit by a car traveling at 20 miles per hour has a nine in 10 chance of surviving. And whereas Medford has set a citywide speed limit of 25 miles per hour on city controlled streets. and whereas Medford has a high proportion of state-controlled roads, including Mystic Valley and Alewife Brook Parkways, Route 16, Route 28, Route 38, and High Street, Route 60, which are Medford's busiest thoroughfares, connecting Medford, the surrounding towns, and I-93, and passing through residential and commercial areas, impacting the safety of people walking, cycling, taking transit, and driving to school, work, parks, grocery stores, natural spaces, and city squares. excuse me, and whereas Massachusetts general law chapter 90 section 18 allows city councils to petition state agencies to modify the speed limit on a state highway within their geographic boundaries. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford city council that we respect the request and recommend that the Massachusetts department of conservation and recreation, DCR and Massachusetts department of transportation, MassDOT set the speed limit on route 16, route 28, route 38 and route 60 in Medford at 25 miles per hour. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will go to Councilor Callahan and then Vice President Collins. But just before I do that, it might be worth the amendment being, saying Route 16, Route 28, Route 38, Route 60, and any other streets or highways controlled by state agencies, something like that as an amendment, just to be a catch-all.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, because I off the top of my head I'm thinking of South Border Road, Elm Street, Highland Avenue.
[Zac Bears]: And there's a couple of other state, there's a Valley Parkway that's not part of Route 16 by the lakes. I mean, Someone said that I think Medford has the second highest proportion of state-controlled roads after Boston, which is pretty wild, but we do have a lot. And 38 is partially city, partially state. I think 60 is the only one that's all under city control. So I think a catch-all amendment might be worth.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. All right. I'll go to Councilor Callahan and then Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Kelly, and I'll go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Yeah, as someone who grew up on a state road, Fells Bay West, but has spent many years looking out my driver's side mirror or looking left and right across the street, worried that someone's going to come whipping down Fells Bay West in the one-way section at 45 miles an hour. And they have taken out two of our cars and a tree in that time. And luckily, no people, but that's probably only because there's no crosswalks. And the only thing To our West is 93. There's other parts that are even much more dangerous. I'm a huge supporter of this resolution. I'm also directly experienced what it's like to lose someone in another community, not in Medford to traffic violence so Yeah, it's just important to me. And I have here a suggested amendment in the last sentence, set the speed limit on any street, highway, or portion of a street or highway controlled by a state agency, including but not limited to Route 16, Route 28, Route 38, Route 60, South Border Road, Elm Street, and Highland Ave in Medford at 25 miles per hour. Sound good? You'll make that amendment? I wrote it down. On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to approve the resolution as amended, seconded by Councilor Callahan, is there any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, any discussion by members of the public? Yes. Name and address for the record, please, and you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Ellery. And I'd start with less drag racing myself. If we have anyone else who'd like to speak in person, you can come to the podium or on Zoom, raise your hand on Zoom. I do see Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom. I will unmute you, Mr. Castagnetti, name and address for the record, and then we'll go back to the podium. Mr. Castagnetti, do you want to speak on this item? It may have been an error in hand. Oh, we got him. All right. Mr. Castagnetti, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I believe state police enforces speed on the state-controlled roads.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. We'll go to Martha at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Zoom. Emily Stein from the Safe Roads Alliance. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Emily, and please reach out and let us know, Ellery, to anyone in the city, how we can support further efforts for regional and state coordination on road safety. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, I will go to the public. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, and I did want to just note enforcement is something that we need more of. I mean, it's not a state-controlled road, but I was on Winthrop Street coming down the hill from Tufts six weeks ago, and I'm doing 20, maybe 25, but 20 going down to 15 to go over the raised crosswalk in front of the church. Guy whips around me 45 miles an hour, left lane, opposite lane, oncoming traffic, and he's not all the way back into the right lane until Goldilocks. I mean, and you had people trying to cross at West Street, trying to cross up a little further at Summer Street. It was just awful to see. And I, of course, immediately pulled over on South Street and called the chief because I had the license plate number. And he says, we can't do anything but pull the plate, call them, and say, hey, you can't do that. But I can't enforce the law. So we need more enforcement. that, you know, I used to have some more concerns about the safe traffic cameras that I do now, given how people have been driving. So with that, any further discussion on this item or public participation will go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah. And I think, you know, there's several processes to be on the lookout for as well. Wellington Circle redesign, the Mystic Avenue, Main Street, Medford Square corridor design process, which is ongoing, and High Street and Mystic Valley Parkway at the Arlington border as well. I know there's designs for shrinking those rotaries. the lane width at those rotaries as well. And those are some really major projects that we should all be paying attention to, um, in terms of design and making sure that they're gonna keep us safe. So seeing no further discussion on the motion of Councilors are seconded by Council Vice President Collins as amended by Councilors are all those in favor. Opposed? Motion passes. Last thing we have on the agenda, public participation. If you have public participation on any item that was not otherwise on the agenda, you can come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. And I will go to Mr. Fiore, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: That's a complicated question. Actually, there are state routes like Route 60 that are city controlled. Most of High Street and Salem Street is city controlled. So I believe Medford does repairs on those the state controlled portions of state road state routes or non state routes, the agency. that controls them is responsible. So, for example, I lived on Fells Way West. Our snow shoveling and snow removal, that's DCR region, I can't remember the region number, but it's the region that's up at Spot Pond, the headquarters there. So Medford snow shoveling and street sweeping rules don't apply to that section of Fells Way West, nor does maintenance or redesign. It's actually also one of the reasons that Main Street and Mystic Ave and Medford Square, that intersection design is so complicated, a portion of the streets are city controlled, a portion of the streets are DCR, and a portion of the streets are MassDOT. So you had to get all three of those groups together to approve design. And probably when it's done, you'll have different agencies maintaining different parts of that intersection. That's my general understanding of how it works. It's probably even more specific stuff but for example, if you're going up fells way west towards stone them, or you can turn right onto Elm Street. They put a paint bump out to change the angle of the curve because it was really steep and people were just whipping right up Elm. but it was just paint. I remember talking with director Blake about putting bollards out to further try to make people actually follow the new curve. And DCR said that they wouldn't do it. They didn't have the staff to maintain the bollards and Todd and DPW offered to do it ourselves. And they said, we won't let you do that. So there's jurisdictional questions that create some really frustrating issues.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, cyclists on that street too. I mean, I would have a really, I mean, it seems like a great place to go on a bike ride and then you're there.
[Zac Bears]: There's a couple larger conversations DCR at the state level. It used to be even more ridiculous how many agencies controlled different parkways and roadways, and they were regionalized. And you had the old MDC and different regional district commissions. And I won't go into it, but that all got merged into DCR. But it still doesn't make a ton of sense to have DCR maintaining all of these roads. MassDOT should probably be doing it. It should be centralized. DCR is deeply underfunded. I think, yeah, I could go into that forever. But that's another piece of the problem with the enforcement on, You know, fells by going up towards stone or south border road. Snow shoveling, I mean it was ridiculous you know they won't even put up bollards to because they're like what if someone we don't have the staff capacity to put them back up if they get knocked down, so that was their justification so that that funding issue with DC ours and there's a problem to that needs to get solved. But I appreciate the comment. And the one other thing is that the Chapter 90 money that we get, which is basically the only money most cities use for street maintenance, is based on just the proportion of the public ways that are in the city control. So the state-controlled roads are out of it. The private ways are out of it.
[Zac Bears]: And that formula is also deeply underfunded, but we get an even shorter end of the stick because we have such a smaller proportion of the mileage in the city is actually controlled by the city.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Thank you very much. You got it. Thank you. Any further public participation, either in person or on Zoom? We have Steve Schnapp. Steve, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'll have to check my email. We did receive a report for quarter one. Yeah, I think it was within the last two weeks or maybe early November. It would be incumbent on a councillor to move that item from unfinished business to take it up from the table for us to discuss it. So if councillors want to do that, they're free to do so at any time. And we do have a report that we got from the administration on fiscal 25 quarter one finances. And I will work on the acronym thing. Thanks, Steve. All right, any further discussion by members of the council? On the motion to adjourn by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council special meeting November 26 2024 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent, please rise to salute the flag. Hearings 24-501 submitted by the Board of Assessors. Allocation of the fiscal 2025 property tax. Let me read the legal notice real quick. Legal notice, notice of a public hearing, City of Medford, the Medford City Council will hold a public hearing in the Howard F. Alton Chambers at Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, and via Zoom on Tuesday, November 26, 2024, at 7 p.m. A link to this hearing will be posted no later than Friday, November 22, 2024. The purpose of this hearing is to hear the Board of Assessors on the following items for the purpose of allocation of the FY 2025 property tax. One, to determine the residential factor for FY25. Two, selecting an open space discount. Three, selecting a residential exemption. Four, selecting a small commercial exemption. Call 781-393-2501 for any aids and accommodations. Order of the Redford City Council, Adam Hurtubise, City Clerk. And I will turn it over to our assessor, Mr. Costigan.
[Zac Bears]: Ted, we also have on the agenda the open space discount. Do we need to vote on that?
[Zac Bears]: But the recommendation would be to not- To not vote.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to-
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Ted, just a couple of quick questions. On this new growth here on the chart, this is new construction.
[Zac Bears]: That'd be accurate. This year, how much of it was like a condo conversion or an exempt building coming on versus just new building or major renovations?
[Zac Bears]: OK, yeah. And are we getting better at capturing that or what's changing to drive the new growth numbers higher?
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, just one more question on the residential exemption. The break even seemed a lot higher this year. I think last time we talked it was in the high 700s, low 800s. Is that just a major change in valuations or what happened there?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And I know you gave us the average single family value was 804. Do you have the median?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Yeah. And I just say that because I think it would be valuable in the future if we could get figures on the number of residential parcels that fall below the break-even point and then those that fall above.
[Zac Bears]: Because I think the council has expressed interest in the residential exemption and would want to have those discussions.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I'll go to Councilor Tseng then Councilor Callaghan.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, one second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I think you'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Ted, just I think to clarify the point, If we were planning for the residential exemption, the tax rate that you would have submitted tonight would have been different.
[Zac Bears]: It would have been higher. Exactly. And the issue being if we pass this tax rate, Essentially, let's say 10,000 people apply for 35% exemptions if that's what we pass. We would need to have tens of millions of dollars in the overlay account to pay back those exemptions. But we wouldn't have raised that because the tax rate would be set based on not having that exemption, essentially.
[Zac Bears]: They don't allow us to estimate.
[Zac Bears]: So if you would open up applications in June, we receive 9,000, you could say we expect this, that would, and then, or?
[Zac Bears]: And so just again, to clarify, there'd be a separate vote. This would not be the vote to establish the exemption? This would be?
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Councilor Calderon.
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead, Jared.
[Zac Bears]: The condo is 23. I'm just putting this in the calculator.
[Zac Bears]: The two family 104s are 24%. The three-family 105s are 3%, 2.9%. In the denominator, you're using 16.025. 16.025, yeah. That would be accurate.
[Zac Bears]: number of parcels over that three families, so four and up is only 116, so it's only 0.01. It's 0.007, so what, 0.7?
[Zac Bears]: Right, it's parcels, not units, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think units would be useful. I think even also like valuation, right? It's 116 parcels, but it's probably 20, $30 million of valuation in that 116.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. So we have, let's do this as a B paper and we can combine this. So we have a B paper from Councilor Callahan, 2.1 request legal procedure to adopt residential exemption from KP law. And then your second part of it is.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, I think that if we could add in the number of units above or number of parcels above and below the break even.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Councilor Collins and then Councilor Scarpelli, I think.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion on either the B paper or the main paper? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation. Is there anyone who would like to speak in person or on Zoom? Please come to the podium in person or raise your hand on Zoom. Okay. So name and address for the record, please. And you can talk on any of the items.
[Zac Bears]: So it's on the council portal.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So first, we'll take the B paper by Councilor Callahan to request. We'll go to Andy when we take, we're going to have a bunch of motions here. So Yeah, we're gonna have five votes so, and you can talk on like the third one, wherever we end up. We have a B paper from Councilor Callahan to request the legal procedure to adopt residential exemption from KP law and also to request from the assessor's office. The percentage of units and valuation across the residential classes. And also I think as amended, if you would just include the number of residential units or parcels above and below the breakeven point for the exemption. So we have that motion from Councilor Callahan, seconded by seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. On the B paper, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The B paper is adopted. We have four votes ahead of us. First, we had the motion from Councilor Collins to adopt the 175% shift, which I think would be a motion to adopt a minimum residential factor of 0.9072. Is that correct? Maximum or minimum? Got it. Motion to drop the lowest possible residential factor for fiscal 25. All right. On the motion of Councilor Collins to adopt the lowest possible residential factor for fiscal 25 seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, none of the negative. The motion passes. And we'll go next. We'll do the open space discount, even though we don't have to, but we have in the past, so we'll do it for now. Is there a motion to not adopt an open space discount?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. On the motion to not adopt an open space discount. So voting yes means we would not adopt. By Councilor Tseng, seconded by?
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. On the residential exemption, is there a motion? on the motion to not adopt the residential exemption by Councilor Tseng second would be to not adopt. Seconded by Councilor Collins. We will go to public participation. Mr. Castagnetti name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti, and we'll share those around.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion by members of the public or Councilor Lazzaro?
[Zac Bears]: I just want to really quickly, Andy, I saw Mr. Costigan. You got to take over the microphone.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Mr. Cassidy, I want to go to Mr. Fiore first.
[Zac Bears]: You can make a comment to the chair, but you can't. Through the chair, I say. Sure. It's not a debate.
[Zac Bears]: OK. Sure. I'd like to keep it short.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to Mr. Fiore. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know if the assistant assessor, if you want to speak to it or Ted's going to come back. It looks like he's might be coming back right now. But if you want to go for it, Jared.
[Zac Bears]: I think that would be helpful for future discussions. And just to add on to the context of your point, The issue is also that you're making an assumption of like how many people are going to take it. And the point is the break even point has to be set based on that assumption to keep the levy even. Right. So you're setting a new tax rate to raise the same amount of money, but you're basing that on the assumption of how what percentage of residential classes will not change.
[Zac Bears]: And under this system, you may, let's say you have a, and this is just, I wanna clarify this too, like say you're in a three-family unit, one of the units is owner-occupied, the other two are not, would that whole structure qualify for an owner occupancy? So you basically would have people, even if they, let's say that three-family is worth 1.2 million, it's over the break-even point, they would have to apply for the owner-occupied exemption their taxes are still gonna go up even though they'll qualify for the exemption essentially, right? But it'll just go up less than if they didn't get the exemption at all. And I'm not saying that to make, I mean, it's a specific case. Adam has it, yeah. Okay, thank you. Does that answer your question, Gaston?
[Zac Bears]: And it's different across the different property classes too, right? Are you mostly just assuming single family and condo?
[Zac Bears]: Got it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion to not adopt a residential exemption by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Collins. Seeing none in person or on Zoom, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative, the motion passes. On the small commercial exemption, is there a motion? On the motion to not adopt the small commercial exemption by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, none the negative. Motion passes. So we will adopt the maximum or the minimum residential factor for the maximum shift. No open space discount, no residential exemption and no small commercial exemption. Any further discussion on this item. Seeing none, is there a motion on the floor on the motion to adjourn by Councilor Tseng seconded by Council is our Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative and a negative. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: City Council and Committee of the Whole, November 20 2024 Mr. please call the roll Council Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I present to absence meeting is called to order. Action Discussions item 19-070. This is by Vice President Collins and Councilor Callahan on the Tree Ordinance. We have three drafts that we've been working on for quite a while as evidenced by the 19-070. That stands for 2019. So we have a public updates to the public tree ordinance in the city ordinance is currently the discussion of the creation of a tree committee and the proposed private tree ordinance, which would be relative to zoning. We are joined today by our building commissioner, our DPW commissioner, representative of Trees Medford. And I think I'm gonna turn it over to Councilor Callahan to talk through how we're going to move through this today, Councilor Callahan. Oh, and before I said I do have to, I will read, or if trees meant for folks want to read their letter into the record. At some point later in the meeting I will read into the record, the letter from trees Medford, and the letter that we received from former Councilor. Yeah, sorry. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, I'm happy to read the letter, unless one of you guys wanna read the letter.
[Zac Bears]: All right, great. And then you'll share, after that, you'll share your screen. Do you want to read the, that'd be great. Yeah. You wrote it. So I feel like you'll have a better feel on it than I do.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Amanda. All right, I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: So I believe that the red indicates a comment that preexisted. And this is the blue indicates changes from the KP law draft to the draft submitted by the trees, Medford folks. So blue is new and black is something that was submitted by KP for the October 11th, 2023 meeting.
[Zac Bears]: So the blue is all the stuff that you added.
[Zac Bears]: We just wanted to be able to see the difference between what you guys did and the KP law. So the blue stuff is everything that you've added. And then it should also show lined removals as well.
[Zac Bears]: Generally, we go through section by section. You can kind of note the changes, and then we can pause for further discussion.
[Zac Bears]: I think summarizing the changes is generally what I like to do, but it's however you want to handle it.
[Zac Bears]: I'm happy to do it, too. I've done it a few times, if you want.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, totally. So it looks like here we have in the purpose section, just looks like there's an edit to quality of the city's environment. And then it looks like there's a quote or kind of a section, a paragraph added. to summarize some changes under Mass General Law chapter 40A or authority provided under General Law 40A. I think we should talk, we can talk about that further, but just that might, we might want to constrain that paragraph to the private ordinance since that's the one that's going to be a zoning ordinance, but we can talk about that. And I'm interested to hear from building commissioner and the DPW commissioner. Under the appointments section, we have the committee shall consist of five Medford residents and up to 10 members total, subject to confirmation by the Council and added two youth members. It looks like a change from the last draft. One member demonstrating expertise in the fields of urban forestry or landscape design. Residency not required if requisite expertise is demonstrated. And then there's just some minor changes to the initial terms, a few more minor changes to duties, but here under section 3A, it looks like there would be a differentiation with the creation of something called the landmark tree hearing. Moving forward, it looks like some additional typographic and other language additions here in sections B, through I, I'm not seeing anything super major. Section J here. I'm just going to pull up my draft because I'm not seeing what was removed. It looks like a majority of this question under the duties has remained pretty consistent from the initial draft or from the draft from October 11, 2023 to now. And I think that generally summarizes the changes. I don't know if Amanda, if you want to talk any more about what changed between the two drafts. Okay. Yeah. So it looks like the main differences are around the composition of the trade committee and some questions around youth membership and residency. At this point, We could recognize either the DPW commissioner or the building commissioner if you have any comments on the tree committee ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Commissioner McGivern. Yeah, and I know that Robin Stein comment on the duties at this section three will be relatively dependent on what actually happens with that public tree ordinance changes as well.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. And I think as Attorney Stein noted, you know, we're subject to the Chapter 87 mass general laws around those authorities. And we can't, yeah, we just can't give away, like the Traffic Commission, for example, is actually defined by state law here, like the Medford Traffic Commission's authority. So just like tree wood. Yeah, exactly. And that's my just the kind of point I'm trying to push home. But yeah, it sounds like for the tree committee, generally, be mostly working with DPW, maybe some language tweaks would be needed around support and advice, but specifics, the public tree ordinance as we look at the amendments there is going to inform some of that for here for the tree committee as well. Excellent. All right. Thank you. So maybe we can move to, well, we can, do we have any more comments on the tree committee ordinance either in person here or on Zoom before we move on to the public? tree ordinance amendments. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. And I will go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Calderon.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing none at this time. Great. Thanks. Thanks. All right. Let's move next to our public tree draft. If you wouldn't mind sharing that. Maybe I don't know. Maybe I can do it. Great. Do you want to go for it?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thank you, Councilor Callahan. Thank you. It's pretty, some pretty significant changes. So I'm wondering, Commissioner McGivern, what your thoughts are and where we might want to go from here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Yeah, I think we're going to need to have this track changes draft brought to you probably to KP as well. I think there's some comments from Attorney Stein around enforcement in here already, but I'm going to go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Councilor Scarpelli, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli and appreciate your comments. I definitely think that a next step out of this meeting is going to be to refer these two relevant department heads. I think for the public tree ordinance going to the DPW, for the private tree ordinance going to both our building commissioner, as well as the, it's a zoning ordinance. So what its interfaces with the zoning updates project that we're working on, I think is going to be important. and that three committee ordinance is going to be relatively determinant based on where we land on this public ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you and good luck. All right, thanks buddy. Great, so With that, do we want to take a look at the private ordinance then we can look at some motions or I'll go to you Councilor Kelly at first.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. First, Scott, do you see any engagement from your office on the public tree ordinance? OK. And Tim, do you think that you know, obviously your comments on this draft are gonna be incredibly important. Do you think that you could do some sort of kind of cost estimate as to what you think trying to fully implement this would look like? I don't know, or general estimate.
[Zac Bears]: great thank you yeah and I really think it's important at this point to just note I think there's two tracks generally here if the public ordinance public tree ordinance and the tree committee mostly assisting dpw with public trees and that's what the dpw then you have the private tree ordinance and that's going to be a zoning related related to the planning department our zoning project and likely enforced by the building department so I just think we should try to keep those in track. So if you wanted to move on a motion here on the public to refer this public tree ordinance draft with these track changes and the tree committee ordinance with these track changes to the DPW, I think that would make sense. We can get that cost estimate, right? So I think that'll be the motion for that. Let me know what you have, Mr. Clerk. And then, yeah, I guess it makes sense. We could come back for another meeting once we've heard some from Tim and then go to send this to KP and then have a final meeting, hopefully. So there'll be two more meetings on this before report out. And this, you know, yeah. They're going to Tim. And Aggie, DPW forestry, DPW commissioner and DPW forestry. However you want to handle that is obviously it's your department.
[Zac Bears]: Just you is fine. Great. So just the DPW commissioner.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. For comment and a cost estimate. Yep. and uh tim when do you think we could maybe do you think meeting in january might be possible i think that's fine okay yeah january maybe add to the council work to schedule a further committee of the whole in january i just don't want to let this drop for 11 months 12 months like we did last time Yeah, I'll go to them in a minute. Yes. Is there a second on that motion? Second by Councilor Tseng. Yep, I'm going to go to discussion. I'm going to go to Loretta on Zoom. Loretta, I'm going to unmute you. If you could just provide your name and address for the record, please. Oh, give me one second. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Loretta. Any further comment? I will go to Lois. Lois, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: It looked to me based on the draft, and anyone can feel free to quirk me here, that the tree committee would mainly be involved in supporting efforts around the public trees. Um, and I think a lot of this has to do with the, um, enforcement authority and the ability, like the city's ability to regulate these questions coming from different parts of Massachusetts general law, um, with the public, basically general law, chapter 87, regulating public trees. And then the zoning state zoning law, chapter 40, a being what's relevant to the private, uh, property trees on private property. Um, I'm trying to look here just in the duties of the tree committee advisory matters concerning Medford's trees. So this edit would bring some, I guess, some element of the private in here. I think we just have to figure out what legal authority there is for that. But I would think that the tree committee would generally be working mainly with the forestry department and the DPW. I'm not sure if any folks want to correct me, that's my reading of the intent.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, the mayor would make appointments and the city council would confirm those appointments and then the committee would be staffed. the mayor would determine who would be staffing and supporting the committee's work.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Lois.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Commissioner McIvern. All right, is there any further discussion on the motion from Councilor Callahan? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, for the affirmative three absent, the motion passes. Maybe we can move into the private tree item. One second. There you go, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I will, I will appreciate the credit, but I was able to use technology. It took me like 15 minutes. So yeah, 10. I did it right here before we started. So, but I appreciate that you think I did more work than I did. I think just if I could comment really quickly, you know, I don't know, I don't know exactly where all of these came from. I'm guessing it's from the ordinances that you cited in the letter, some different pieces of different pieces. I do want to go to Scott and then maybe to Tim. But my general understanding is the tree warden generally isn't involved in the private sector regulatory realm and zoning enforcement is subject of the building department and code enforcement. So my suggestion is it might be worth sitting down outside of a public meeting with the building department, maybe making a decision not to include tree warden and DPW, and maybe that's a step forward. You can come up with something there, but I do want to give Scott a chance to talk before we move forward on anything. If you have anything to say.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, commissioner. I appreciate it. I'm sorry for not recognizing you as commissioner. I'm going to just open it up to discussion. Members of the council about path forward here. Any thoughts? Councilor
[Zac Bears]: Got it. I'm gonna go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I think it would make sense to involve the planning office and the NS Associates team who is working on the zoning update in a meeting between, I guess, you or you and Councilor Collins, Commissioner Vandewalle, and some folks from PDS and NS to kind of work through this. I know Attorney Silverstein could provide some guidance around the law without necessarily having to come up with a draft, send it to KP, get KP comments back. but I think, yeah, I would suggest that that happened as kind of just a city meeting, a mini meeting of city staff. And then when you guys have been able to iron something out that can come back to us and maybe it's part of the zoning process, or maybe it's, you know, we keep, we probably want to keep considering these three papers together, but I'm not sure how it'll interface with the work that we're doing for the zoning. There's a pretty ambitious timeline and calendar there. So, That would be my suggestion. Any further discussion? Councilor Kelly?
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: By staff, you mean the building commissioner and the planning department?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Callahan, seconded by. Councilor Leming. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Any further discussion by members of the public? I'm just going to add in, come to the podium, yes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: The first motion was for the public and the tree committee.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion? I have Kim on Zoom. Kim, I will recognize you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, yeah, I appreciate that comment. And I'm seeing a nod from Councilor Callahan, maybe that you could work with Councilor Collins and the other folks to entries meant for to invite someone. Great. Awesome. On the motion of Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Leming, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Any further discussion on this topic at this time? All right, I just wanna thank everybody for getting us re-centered with staff changes and everything else and council changes. I think we're in a good place now to move ahead. We have good next steps on each of the ordinances and hopefully we can come back in January for public trees and then we'll wait to hear back on the private tree from the group that's gonna be working on it on a timeline there, making sure it fits in with the zoning project. Any motions? on the motion to adjourn by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Hi everyone. Thank you. to the chair and the Community Development Board. I want to thank residents for their feedback and concerns, some of which we have heard as city councilors as well, and I've been listening tonight. I just want to speak mostly to Tufts at this point, given what we know about the law. A lot of what we've been advocating for from the city council perspective and state legislators exist because we don't feel that there's a fair balance of power between the city and the residents and Dover exempt institutions like Tufts and other institutions in the education and health space. And I really want to encourage Tufts to use this as an opportunity to build some of that connection. I see a lot of the benefits here. The housing shortage is real. We want more students on campus housed at Tufts, but I think Tufts could use this as an opportunity to build some connection, even though they're not legally required to, by accepting a voluntary site plan review beyond just the Dover site plan review. looking at a pilot payment similar to the Cummings Center, an additional pilot beyond what is provided to the city, more concretely committing to working with the building trades and other union contractors to ensure fair labor on the project. And I also want to just thank the CD board for their work on this and hopefully given the difficult legal conditions that exist there can be additional public realm improvements on traffic safety and trees on Boston Avenue as well as light and sound mitigation. But again I just think this is an You know, there's a reason why we're filing the institutional master plan bill. There's a reason why I support pilot bills at the State House. And I think it's because we just see how limited municipalities are with the Dover Amendment and the exemptions given to our large nonprofit educational and health care institutions. So I'm asking Tufts to use this as an opportunity to work differently and maybe go beyond just what they're required to do. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, through the chair. I just wanted to give a little more context on a couple of things. That big trapezoidal pink lot is the Walnut Street Center now, and formerly Russo Marine. So that's kind of where the commercial would start. And then that small purple right next to it, that's kind of where the current Dunkin' Donuts, Sarah's Chicken Pie, the thing between Alexander and Bonner is. Then the street that's going in Hicks Ave that goes from the pink into the blue at the end where that intersects with Mystic Ave, that's Avellino's there. You'd be trying to take those paint shops and the auto shops that are further back along Hicks Ave and instead of having that abutting Exchange Street and abutting the Missittuck School in Columbus Park, trying to have that be a little bit more of a connected area. I just wanted to provide also 1 more piece of context on the Northwestern end. If you look, I really think Emily and Paula hit the look forward piece. Great. Something that was really important to just 2 other pieces to note is the mass dot. A redesign of the Medford square, main street, mystic Avenue intersection to be signalized. And how that whole area is such an essential transparent transit connector for multimodal transit, um, from an East West perspective. You know, we're still going to have a lot of lanes of traffic there, but the idea is to reduce speeds to reduce the constant throughput and the dangers there. Because it is basically the 1 place that you can cross East to West and North South across the river. Eventually on the 16. Uh, overpass, you're going to have a. two-way bike lane that's connecting essentially across that whole 16 connector. Then the other piece where we really wanted to put thought in is what were those street layouts originally designed for? Because this is one of the parts of the city where the auto culture really has demolished the original intent of the street layout. If you look at some really old photos, there were really gorgeous buildings multi-story, three-story brick, very similar to Bigelow in the square at the triangle intersection of Mystic and Main. That's now the mobile gas station, right? And with the change in the intersection, I think there's a real and with just the change in the dynamic of auto centric industry and where we're going with development. I think there's a huge opportunity in that Northwest corner. To restitch that neighborhood together and try to research it together with Medford square. While also working through this east, west, north, south, like connectivity area for multimodal transit and pedestrian bike access. So that was really the thinking of the council. It was definitely a look forward. But also a look back to what was there before all the body shops and gas stations where it really was a. one of the city's oldest residential neighborhoods with interesting mixed use buildings and residential structures. So it'd be great to try to restore what I consider to be an error of planning of the 50s and 60s to something better.
[Zac Bears]: Shane you good. Medford City Council 22nd regular meeting November 24, 2024 is called the order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Present, seven present, none absent, please rise to salute the flag. As a reminder, all votes will be roll call tonight because we have Vice President Collins on Zoom. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records. 24496 offered by Vice President Collins and Councilor Scarpelli. This is a resolution to congratulate the Bedford High School varsity rowing team. They requested that they be taken later in the meeting. Is there a motion to table? On the motion to table by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion is tabled. Records, the records of the meeting of November 12th, 2024 were passed to Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins, how did you find the records?
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. to the next meeting. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Reports of committees 2 4 0 3 3 offered by Vice President Collins planning and permitting committee November 13 2024 report to follow Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you on the motion to approve the committee report by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative, none in the negative, the committee report is approved. Motions, orders, and resolutions. 24499 offered by Vice President Collins and President Bears. This is the aforementioned amendment to the zoning ordinance for the Green Score for referral to the Community Development Board. The purpose of the Green Score is to provide flexibility in meeting environmental performance standards, promote attractive environmentally functional landscapes, strengthen climate adaptive goals established in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan released in 2022 by improving flood resilience, heat mitigation, storm infiltration, and water, air, and soil quality, And to offer a many free ecosystem services, including mitigation of pollution shade and energy savings recreational opportunities and enhance property values and quality of life. As this was discussed in planning and permitting committee right now, this will only apply if approved to the Mystic Avenue Corridor District, which is currently under consideration by the Community Development Board. And as further zoning amendments move through, the green score would be added. But also right now applies to, I'm sorry, construction of new principal buildings or major renovations in FEMA flood hazard layer zones or projects that require site plan review. Any further discussion? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng to refer to community development board seconded by councilor Callahan. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative. None of the negative. The motion passes and the zoning amendment is referred to the Community Development Board. Communications from the mayor 24494 submitted by Mayor Brianna Lugo Kern Riverside Plaza P. A. R. C. Grant loan order and C. P. C. Appropriation approval request. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council. I'm excited to share that the city has been awarded $198,853 for the Parkland Acquisitions and Renovations for Communities Park Grant for the Riverside Plaza Improvements Project. The City's Community Preservation Committee is also recommending an appropriation of CPA funds in the amount of $144,250 for a total project cost of $343,103. The park grant requires that the City Council pass a resolution accepting the grant and acknowledging the restrictions to this space slash project for providing recreation purposes. The grant also requires that full funding for the projects be appropriated upon acceptance of the grant. The enclosed resolution addresses these requirements. The grant will then reimburse a $198,853 portion of the appropriation. In summary, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body adopt the enclosed resolution to accept the grant and authorize a loan order request of $198,853 for the project, which will be reimbursed by the park grant. Park grant requires a copy of certified vote sent to them by December 31st. and I hope these requests have been submitted with sufficient time for review. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. So we have the resolution language here. We do have a letter from KP Law indicating that the loan order is prepared and loan order is authorized and in the correct form, properly granting the treasurer with the approval of the mayor. the authority to issue the bonds for the city. And that has been reviewed by Bond Council. And we also have here a letter from the Community Preservation Committee requesting that we requesting and recommending that we approve the CPC appropriation. And I believe we have Amanda Centrella here as well as Teresa DuPont. So I will let Amanda present anything else that you'd like to present.
[Zac Bears]: So if you're interested, sure, we'll take a quick presentation.
[Zac Bears]: Um, I think we need to make you a co host. Yes, please. Thank you. One second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have questions for Amanda, or do we want to hear from Teresa first? Teresa, is there anything you'd like to add?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. We'll go to Councilor Callahan and then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, anything else you'd like to add? Great. So we're going to take two votes here. First, we need to take a vote on the loan order and the resolution to accept the grant. That means three readings, and then we can vote on the community preservation committee appropriation request. So is there a motion on the loan order to approve for first reading? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve for first reading, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk. Please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Councilor Callahan?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The loan order and acceptance of the park grant passes for first reading. On the CPC appropriation request? On the motion of councillors are to approve seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng, President Bears. Yes, seven affirmative no negative emotion. Thank you. All right. 24497 submitted my bear brain on go current ballot question seven and eight override supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 2025 Medford public schools operating budget and the Department of Public Works. Dear President Bears and members of the city council in accordance with the vote of the city of Medford approving question seven and eight on November 5 2024 state election ballot. I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves the following additional appropriations to the fiscal year 2025 men for public schools operating budget, and the Department of Public Works. and further rescind the city council's June 11th, 2024 vote to appropriate a one-time fund advance of ARPA funds that was provided to avoid severe budget cuts in the fiscal 25 MPS operating budget in the event that the override questions did not pass. These ARPA funds will now instead be used for items outlined in the city's capital improvement plan, such as, but not limited to, the purchase of a fire engine for the fire department and two hybrid police cruisers for the police department. for supplemental appropriation to below DPW and close as a comprehensive budget breakdown as with any budget is subject to adjustments. The city will provide a breakdown of funds spent on the DPW and through my role as chair of the school committee, I will work with my school committee colleagues and the MPS administration to ensure detailed reporting for all override funds expended by the Medford public schools as well. Supplemental Appropriation One, Medford Public Schools. It is hereby ordered that the city of Medford raise by taxation and appropriate the additional sum of $3 million to supplement the fiscal year 2025 Medford Public Schools operating budget for the purposes stated in question seven on the November 5th, 2024 state election ballot. Cost of teachers, literacy coaches, behavior specialists, administrative assistants and nurses positions and regular facilities maintenance. department Medford public schools fiscal 25 appropriation 3 million and further rescind the city council's june 11 2024 vote appropriating the sum of 1.75 million in american rescue plan act funds as a one-time advance for the fiscal 25 mps budget sorry there just a second Supplemental appropriation to Department of Public Works is hereby ordered that the city of Medford raised by taxation and appropriate additional sum of 500,000 for the Department of Public Works consistent with the vote under question seven on the November 5 2024 state election ballot for additional staff for road and sidewalk infrastructure repair related insurance expenses and related capital expenses. All is set forth in the chart below. Department DPW highway salaries FY 25 appropriations $270,192.64. DPW highway expenses fiscal 25 $67,195.36. Related insurance expenses fiscal 25 $102,612. Related capital expenses including for example trucks to be used by additional staff $60,000 total $500,000. Supplemental appropriation three, Medford Public Schools. It is hereby ordered that the city of Medford raised by taxation and appropriate the additional sum of four million to supplement the fiscal year 2025 Medford Public Schools operating budget for the purposes stated in question eight on the November 5th, 2024 state election ballot to create a high school schedule that increases access to arts and vocational programming to expand classroom instructional opportunities and for classroom and teacher paraprofessional compensation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2024 And to effectuate and further the will of the voters of the city of Medford as evidenced by their approval of question eight, the school committee per its procedures and prior to expenditure of the funds appropriated here under shall determine in detail the specific anticipated operational costs and expenses to provide the reference programming. Department Medford Public Schools, fiscal 25, $4 million, total $4 million. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. And also we have included here a budget breakdown for road and sidewalk infrastructure repair outlining three new positions in the Department of Public Works, a PW14 Mason working foreman, PW8 maintenance craftsman and laborer, PW8 maintenance craftsman laborer, overtime estimated at $23,000 per employee, stipends for OSHA 1030 clothing and CPR, ordinary expenses, parts and supplies, unleaded gas, repair supplies, asphalt, concrete, manholes, et cetera, totaling $67,195 and additional capital expenses, 60,000, as well as health insurance at 99,000 for the three employees and dental and vision at 3,400 for a total of 500,000 for the DPW. With that, I will go to the chief of staff, if there's anything that you would like to add to the presentation, and then we can go to questions by councilors.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will also offer Commissioner McGivern if there's anything you want to add.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Further discussion, I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion on this matter? Seeing none on the motion of Councilor Tseng seconded by Councilor Callahan, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Bears. Yes. I have an affirmative and a negative. The motion passes. Communications from city officers and employees 24495 submitted by director of traffic and transportation Todd Blake authorization of future blue bikes contract exceeding three years to Medford City Council from Todd Blake director of traffic and transportation. Sorry, authorization of future blue bikes contract exceeding three years This memorandum summarizes the request to authorize a future contract as required by section 12 of chapter 30 be the general laws, the city's contract with lift the operator blue blue bikes will expire in fall 2025. The Metropolitan Area Planning Council intends to issue a request for proposals on behalf of all the municipalities that are part of the Blue Bike system to select a new operator in 2025. MAPC will select one operator to manage the entire system to ensure that it continues to operate regionally. Each municipality will then have the opportunity to contract with the selected operator separately or enter into a joint contract. It is the intention of Blue Bikes municipalities to enter into a five-year contract with two two-year options to renew with the future operator. entering into a longer-term contract will encourage the future operator to provide a higher level of service to users and help secure more funding through the system's title sponsorship, which will then allow the service to continue growing throughout the region. And I'm not gonna read the rest if folks don't mind me reading the legalese on chapter 30B. All right. I think we're good. I'm gonna go to director Todd Blake.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Todd. I will go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And just FYI, we're having some audio issues with your audio, Vice President Collins. Todd sounded fine, right? Yeah, might be on your end, Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins has motion to approve. Is there any, is there a second? Second by Councilor Tseng. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Director Blake, is there anything you want to share relative to bike safety infrastructure as related to blue bikes or otherwise?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Blake. Any further discussion? Seeing none, on the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, is that right? Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative and the negative, the motion passes. The last things that we had, we have a public participation item from Andrew Castagnetti. And thank you, Director Blake. And we did have the tabled item regarding the crew team. I'm thinking maybe we should just table both of them to the next regular meeting. Yeah. Crew team's already tabled. All right, crew team's tabled, so we'll put that back on the next regular meeting agenda. And then is there a motion to table Mr. Castagnetti's public participation item for the next regular meeting? On the motion to table the public participation item from the gentleman from East Med Ford by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in favor of the negative, the motion is tabled. Any further discussion? All in If you would like to participate in public, please raise your hand on Zoom or in person. Is he walking up?
[Zac Bears]: Andy, we just tabled your item. We're almost done. Do you want to speak tonight? You're a little late. We'll take you. Motion to take the paper off the table from Mr. Cassidy by Councilor Leming seconded by Councilor Callahan. One second Mr. Clerk please call the roll. We just need to, we have to vote to bring it back. Councilor Callahan, we're in a roll call. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, if everyone's done the negative, the motion passes. Mr. Cassidy, name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any questions? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: It was definitely the first bridge over the Mystic.
[Zac Bears]: So, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes, I appreciate the gesture to Larry. We miss him every day, and we will figure out how to do it I just appreciate you bringing it in the form of a check and not cash. So that that helps.
[Zac Bears]: just when I thought I was out. I'm gonna go to Councilor Callahan who has requested the microphone. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Any further discussion? Any further participation in the public participation section of the meeting? I'm going to go to Zoom. We have Eunice Browne on Zoom. Eunice, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Hi Eunice. On the second question we have not yet received the report from the Charter Commission I think it's expected towards the end of the month or the beginning of next month. for tomorrow night. I honestly was unsure as to what was going to happen with the paper tonight. So I didn't know if there'd be a lot of discussion about it. I didn't know if we'd want to move to another meeting. I didn't know if there may be a motion to table. So that's why we have the two meetings. We approved it and it's been disposed with tonight. So I don't expect that we will have the regular meeting tomorrow night, but we will have the committee of the whole on the tree ordinance at six o'clock.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. If anyone else would like to participate, please approach the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, on the motion to adjourn by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I ended up at City Hall and it's here to Anna setting up zoom right now. Oh geez. Oh no I was here anyway. But I think maybe apologies to Anna. I had a meeting here at five.
[Zac Bears]: He has them, sorry, he sent them to Paula. Paula's gonna present them. Okay, cool.
[Zac Bears]: Just to clarify. So this language for the major renovation. This is the language from the building code that the Great, and then for the X and the AE for FEMA, does X correspond to the 1% chance? Does AE correspond to the 0.2% chance? Just where would those fit in?
[Zac Bears]: Um wait, uh, President Barry's, uh, I was later. No, that was me. I was late on that one. Um. I would just throw out the idea of maybe a 25% at least 25% affordable, um, as a minimum threshold. Um. I also just had a question about how. This interfaces with the solar ordinance. Um. You know, because I think if we're talking about some. you know, relatively large buildings with relatively small side setbacks. And we also have the solar ordinance requiring solar on the rooftop. I'm just wondering how much that limits the green roof type solution.
[Zac Bears]: All right, so Council President Bears. Thanks. Um, and on that front, I think It seems like we're kind of getting this in, the framework in, and there's just a couple of things that we're gonna work through as we adopt more districts and we're able to do the research on the community solar. But I just was wondering, maybe it's a question for Paula, looking at other ordinances, or maybe a question for the building commissioner. Are there other places or other zoning requirements where we use the same approach that you described, Mr. Commissioner, with the bond question versus a temporary occupancy permit? Scott?
[Zac Bears]: And if I may, Mr. Chair.
[Zac Bears]: It sounds to me like the concern is if they finish up in November, they're not doing plantings till the spring, if they already have all the permits and approvals they need from the city, maybe they just never follow through with their landscaping plan. Is that essentially the concern we're trying to correct for?
[Zac Bears]: Council President Bears. Yeah, they could also be incorporated during the CD board hearing. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I'll just I'll make a motion to refer out to the regular meeting pending the discussion. Yep.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, I just wanted to note Alicia and I both posted some links to the documents. Apologies that they weren't up on the council portal. They went up, we got them after the final, the agenda went up online. So I forgot to upload them, but I just uploaded them. And I think Alicia, beat me to it and had them uploaded to the city website before this meeting, so.
[Zac Bears]: You can take the pending further discussion part out. We had it. I just wanted to make sure we didn't do it until we heard from the public.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah. And we definitely, you know, I hear what you're saying, George, and We've had some discussions about how we're going to get the word out going forward. I think the first thing to say is that for Salem Street. The next meeting we're going to discuss, this is going to be December 11th, and the plan is to get that out through all the different city channels, an announcement, and save the date for that community meeting, digital flyer, and I believe we're going to work on a robocall for that meeting. And then for the meetings from January through May, the plan is to put together a full uh release and web page that talks about different neighborhoods that we're going to be talking about each month and my goal is also to have hopefully um along with that the meeting dates and get those out a month in advance and do uh the follow-up of the announcement um the flyer putting it out in the city newsletter and the planning newsletter and doing a robocall to those neighborhoods uh in advance of the meetings so that we can um Get that message out more clearly. So we talked about that after our last meeting and we want to Just get that a little cleaner and tighter so that folks know a little more in advance and that we have the Um, all of the different city outreach tools at our disposal are used to reach folks about those meetings.
[Zac Bears]: do you take public participation?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I was, I don't think we have kind of like a neighborhoods program per se. Um, and I'm not sure what the capacity would be to, uh, coordinate that, uh, with the communications officer, the community relations, uh, staff. Um, but I mean, I think that's the very least something we can try to do is also share this information out through the community liaisons and they might have, uh, through the health department, they might have some, grounding in different neighborhoods of the city, but yeah, I don't know what the mayor's team in community relations and constituent services has in terms of volunteers around like a neighborhood program.
[Zac Bears]: There's no one in the chamber, no.
[Zac Bears]: 21st regular meeting Medford City Council November 12 2024 is called to order Mr. please call the roll Council Callahan, Vice President Collins Council is our Council Leming, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, President, President Bears present seven present none absent the meeting is called to order please rise to salute the flag. Announcements accolades remembrances reports and records records the records of the meeting of October 29 2024 pastor Councilor Callahan Councilor Callahan how did you find those records. On the motion of Councilor Callahan to approve seconded by seconded by Councilor Collins Mr. Clerk please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative negative the motion passes. Refer to committee for further discussion just a reminder that the intent of this section is for us to refer items to committee for further discussion, no final action will be taken on these items during this meeting. 24491 resolution to discuss compensation ordinance for elected officials. It looks like there's an amended version resolution to discuss ordinance to disallow the city council from passing any salary changes that affect sitting elected officials by councilor Callahan. Whereas only the city council can change the salaries of Medford elected officials, mayor, city council and school committee. And whereas there's no way for elected officials to adjust elected official salaries for inflation or general cost of living increases without the city council voting to change elected official salaries. And whereas there is a personal incentive for city Councilors to increase their own salaries, whereas the city council increasing salaries that are increasing salaries of others is viewed as in form of impropriety and be it resolved that this governance committee take up an ordinance to disallow the city council from passing any salary changes that affect sitting elected officials and to encourage city council to consider Cola adjustments for elected officials in the next cycle. I would just note before turning this over for a brief, I hope, discussion or introduction by the proponent before the motion to refer to committee that I don't think an ordinance would affect this at all we already have three charter and state laws that affect this so as a plan a charter chapter 4317 a. already applies to the city. Chapter 71, section 52 governs how school committees are compensated. And then the acts of 2002 chapter 447 is a Medford specific law that would supersede any ordinance passed by the city. So the way to go at this is with charter amendment, not with an ordinance. But with that, I will go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: We're on the motion of Councilor Callahan to refer to governance committee seconded by Councilor Collins, excuse me, please wait. Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the council. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Well, what I can say is that state law controls here no matter what, but I will go to councilor Callahan. You've amended your resolution.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah. And I would just note again, The existing law for the school committee is Chapter 71 Section 52, which means we have to do that. And the existing law for the city is the Mass General Law Acts of 2002 Chapter 447, which I think was an attempt to in 2003 to try to get this to be more of a something that happens as part of the course of other folks, specifically that says that the mayor and the council salaries would increase the same amount as the director of budgets, finance director, director of community development, city clerk, city treasurer, city solicitor, chief assessor, the average percentage for those offices. So those are the current laws that apply. Any further discussion from members of the council before I go back to Councilor Callahan? Seeing none, I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: So first of all, that has been removed and that's like... I think the problem is that we didn't need to have this discussion right now. That's the issue. I mean, I just think this is a waste of everyone's time to be completely honest. There's a law in place. And in fact, the city council and the mayor, like what the law is, is that when other people's salaries go up, the senior management of the city, the council and the mayor salary would also go up by that same average percentage. That's the current law on the books. That's what happened in June. So I think there's misrepresentation on all sides of what happened. And I think that's just my perspective. And I apologize for just giving my opinion from the chair without recognizing anybody else, but I just didn't like, really don't think this is a productive conversation on any front, because everybody seems pretty confused and frustrated on all sides. There was a motion to refer it to committee. It was seconded, Councilor Lazzaro. Give me one second. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I'm gonna go to Councilor Leming, then Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just gonna let him finish and you can go.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I think we just did a very good thing for our community, but...
[Zac Bears]: Let's not get back and forth, guys.
[Zac Bears]: I hear you, but let's not go for it.
[Zac Bears]: We went through the chair.
[Zac Bears]: You did publicly represent the organization, so... People talk about me and our revolution from this council floor all the time, George. Do what, George? Okay, people are just saying what they want to say, George. You say a lot of stuff all the time. I'll let you talk. Any further discussion? All right.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: All right, there's a motion to refer to committee. Is there a second. All right, then we any further discussion by members of the council. Members of the public, three minutes, same address for the record, please. We'll alternate between Zoom and in person. You can go.
[Zac Bears]: You can go.
[Zac Bears]: I wasn't behind this, so thank you.
[Zac Bears]: There's no organization behind this.
[Zac Bears]: I just, you can't lie.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. South, if you're gonna be disrespectful, we're not gonna continue here.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. South, if you're gonna be disrespectful.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. South as you know the city council does not negotiate union contracts, and this was proposed by one Councilor. I don't support it. I don't think it was something that we should be bringing up right now but we can continue to say whatever we want for political purposes. I don't know what that means. I don't know what that means. There's no overseers. Thank you. Well, you can believe, sir, please stop. You're an embarrassment, Mr. South. Get out of here. You should leave. Mr. Self, on the motion to recess. No, I don't, I don't. If you can't handle, you need to work a little better at that. And you maybe need to go to a little anger management. You're disgusting.
[Zac Bears]: The emotions are running a little high. We'll go to the podium, name and address the record. And Nadine, if you're here in person, I'm guessing your hand's not up here on Zoom. All right, you're good. It just would have been your turn. All right, name and address the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium name and address the record please you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: It is what it is
[Zac Bears]: I'm behind the podium and I'm going to restart your three minutes because you're nice to me.
[Zac Bears]: Let's just let him, let's just go through. And the initial one that mentioned it, the Councilor has edited it to remove it.
[Zac Bears]: We're going back to three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: School Committee member Bramley, you will have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your time. name and address for the record you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: It's a new system.
[Zac Bears]: 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Nadine. I'm gonna go to Zoom real quick and then we'll come back at Stone. I'm gonna go to Ken Garrow on Zoom. Ken, name and address for the record for this little three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, you're sounding a little funky there. How about this? That's better, yep.
[Zac Bears]: Thankfully, I actually was able to... Councilor Scarpelli has just noted that he is not a board member. ...organization that I follow.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I believe the proposal as it stands is that the City Council could not increase its own salary or the salary of any other elected official until, if an increase were to go into effect, it would go into effect after the next election.
[Zac Bears]: The current compensation is, I believe $30,400. Thank you. 30,000 what? 400, I think. And other stipends or other funds, US dollars come into your?
[Zac Bears]: I don't think that information is immediately available.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. Had a conversation about it. Believe we have a motion to refer this to the Governance Committee by Councilor Callahan as amended and seconded by Councilor Collins. Any further discussion. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I'm sorry, go ahead, continue.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. And I'm just going to go real quick. I think there's two things here. I think there are the facts and the substance of the matter right now, the way it works by state law and charter. is that the school committee compensation is set by a vote of the city council. The city council controls the amount and the timing for school committee. For the mayor and the city council, the city council, that is actually set by an average of the, let me read it exactly. The salaries may be increased at the recommendation of the Mayor and the approval of the City Council if the salaries of each of the following officers of the City of Medford are increased. Director of Budgets and Personnel, Finance Director Auditor, Director of Community Development, City Clerk, City Treasurer, collector city solicitor and the chief assessor appraiser. Any salary increase for the office of mayor and the members of the city council should not increase exceed the average percentage by which the salaries for the aforesaid officers is increased. The city council does not have the power to set its own salary at whatever it amount tomorrow. There are restrictions right now on what the city council can do in terms of the salaries of the mayor and the city council and it's that If the mayor puts it forward and the council approves, they can go up by the average of essentially the main management of the city. That's the current law. Councilor Callahan, I believe's intent, and I think to be honest, it was not a particularly clear resolution to make the point. It references other city charters, but talks about an ordinance, it references COLA, but I believe the intent was to move away from what I just read, which is that the city council and mayor salary can increase by the average of essentially city managing staff, to that the city council's salary could not increase in the term in which the city council voted, current city council is sitting. I think that's a substance. I think on the optics and the discussion, people aren't going to go into the substance all the time and discuss the good faith substance that someone may be proposing. We've had a lot of contentious conversations about compensation that we can call it salaries or stipends or whatever else we wanna call it. This council has had it for many years. There were discussions in the 2000s and the 2010s and the 1990s about compensation for the city council. The city council in 2016, or sorry 2013 completely changed the way the city council is compensated because it used to be based on what Andy was talking about pencils and supplies and travel and all of these kind of nebulous things. So there's been a lot of there's a lot of legislative history on the compensation elected officials in the city. And I think what people are expressing, and I think those people maybe are both folks behind the other side of the rail who are saying, I don't like that we're talking about raising elected officials' compensation. And to be quite frankly, I think what you were saying, Councilor Callahan, about some of us who felt that since school committee hadn't changed since 2000 and the city council since 2016, that following the laws as are laid out to adjust that compensation was a fair thing. but we also didn't want to be having this conversation. At least I think so by the looks on everybody's faces. I think George doesn't want to be having it either. And I can't see Justin right now, but I bet he doesn't want to either. So the substance, it's a fair discussion. How do we do that? How do elected official salaries get changed? It's a state law and a charter issue. We're going to have discussions. I think the charter study committee actually has some recommendations around that, that we'll be discussing. But then there's also what happened last week, what happened this week. And I think we all acknowledge there's some people in the room who are happy question six didn't pass. There's some people in the room who are happy question seven and eight did pass. Nobody's happy. There's a mixed result. We don't even have to get into other elections that happened last Tuesday that I'm sure a lot of people have a lot of feelings about. But I think that's more what the question is here than the substance of, and some people may well be happy about, as I see as well. But I think it's just like, is this the conversation we'll be having today? And I think a lot of us feel the answer is no, but beyond that, We'll go back to the podium. We'll just do a couple more minutes. Go ahead, Harry, let me turn on the mic. You got three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Harry. And I do just want to know that we have heard from a lot of our union partners here before the rail. We don't participate in the negotiations, but we do, what our small part is, we do approve the final agreements and we have, I think, consistently waived readings to move agreed collective bargaining agreements to get the pay to the folks as soon as those agreements have been met. We'll go to the podium, name and address for the record, three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I do hope that the rest of the meeting was less of an SS then, which I think was the swear word you wanted to say, but less of a mess then. But you know, we can have the civil conversations as Nick said, but yeah. All right, we've had the discussion on the motion of Councilor Callahan as amended by Councilor Callahan a seconded by Vice President Collins, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. This is to refer to governance Council Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 formative one in the negative this is referred to governance committee 24492 resolution receive update on roads whereas it has been more than six months and city council was last updated on our roads. And whereas during the election of November 5, the voters of Medford considered a budget override provision in question seven providing funds for among other purposes fiscal year 2025 general operations of the Department of Public Works. including but not limited to additional staff for road and sidewalk infrastructure repair, and that ballot question was successful. Now therefore be it resolved that the Public Works and Facilities Committee invite Engineer Owen Wartella and DPW Commissioner Tim McGibbon to attend an upcoming meeting to talk about the state of the roads and the plan moving forward given the outcome of the election. Councilor Callahan. And this is on the motion to refer to the Public Works and Facilities Committee.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion to refer to Public Works and Facilities, seconded by Vice President Collins. Any further discussion? Seeing no discussion by members of the council members of the public, please call the roll. Yes. Yes. Yes, negative the motion passes 24493 resolution established volunteer tree planting program whereas Medford loses an estimated 500 or more trees a year and plants 250 fewer than 250 trees each year. And whereas the cost of planning city trees is primarily in labor to plant the trees. and whereas Medford only has one full-time staff member dedicated to our trees, the tree warden, and whereas Medford currently contracts out for tree planting, which is more expensive than planting with an in-house crew, and whereas trees are a vital part of fighting climate change, helping cool buildings and streets in the summer, and add to the beauty of our city, and whereas Medford has many residents who want to volunteer to plant city trees, Now therefore be it resolved that the Public Works and Facilities Committee invite you BW Commissioner McGibbon to attend an upcoming meeting to begin discussing the possibility of allowing Metro residents to volunteer to help plant city trees on the motion to refer to public works and facilities committee Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? On the motion referred to Public Works and Facilities Committee by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Fiori, name and address the record of three minutes. Sorry, give me one second. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Chair, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, affirmative, non-negative, the motion passes. 24484, this was tabled from our last meeting. This is a resolution to adopt the local options of the HEROES Act. I believe we heard back from council and the city solicitor, or sorry, council and the city assessor. fingers crossed on that city solicitor, that this was sufficient as to form and that the impact would not be significant. It would be addressed by the overlay, but I will go to Councilor Leopold.
[Zac Bears]: So the amended version would read be it further resolved that the city of Medford accept general laws chapter 59 section 5 clause 22 J which authorizes an annual increase in the amount of the exemption granted under general laws chapter 59 section 5 clause 22 22 a 22 b 22 c 22 e and 22 f by 100% of the personal exemption amount subject to the conditions in clause 22 J to be effective July 1 2025 that is correct. Great. On the motion to approve by Councilor Leming, as amended by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan, any further discussion? And just to note, this is expanding property tax exemptions for veterans pursuant to the HERO Act, which was passed as Chapter 178 of the Acts of 2024 by the legislature. Vice President Collins. One second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. And I will go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. on the motion of council I mean as seconded by councillor Callahan to approve as amended. Mr. please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears, yes 70 from him done the negative the motion passes to 4487 submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. This is the capital stabilization fund appropriation requests. We did hear from our fire chief or dpw commissioner facilities director. This is for engine three truck pump replacement $51,643 24 cents. cemetery soil removal $120,000 grant match for the municipal vulnerability vulnerability preparedness action grant for updating the 2019 climate change vulnerability assessment and developing an urban forest master plan. That's $24,600 and the city hall, all the memorial chambers, window restoration, $322,500. This is appropriation requests from the capital stabilization fund requiring a two third majority vote. The stabilization fund has a balance of $3,923,737. And if these appropriations remain all approved, It would be at $3,404,993.76. And at the last meeting, this was a B paper amendment requesting an update on the mayor's capital plan, particularly as it relates to additional fire apparatus. And subsequently to that, Councilor Scarpelli invoked rule 21 table in this paper until the next meeting. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, Let's go let's take it actually the B paper first, and I'll take you on both Councilors got probably motion to approve the B paper seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. please call the role. The B paper is requesting an update on the mayor's capital plan, particularly as it relates to the additional fire apparatus. Yes, please call the roll on the paper on the paper, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. President Bears, yes, 70 permanent negative the motion passes on the paper on the main paper motion approved by Councilor Scarpelli a seconded by Vice President Collins, any further discussion by members of the council. Seeing none, we'll go to the podium. Gaston, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Sorry. I'll get there.
[Zac Bears]: I would have to go back and double check the recording, but I believe they bid out for the engine three truck pump and it came in at a higher cost. So this is covering a difference in a bidded amount. The cemetery swill removal, I think will go to bid and is based on an estimate or a quote or multiple quotes, but would still go to bid. The grant matches based on the grant and I, I'd have to double check 30 be, but I think because the grant match it's not subject to fitting right anything over 10,000 except there's some certain exceptions legal legal services, and a couple other things aren't subject to 30 be. And then the third, the fourth one though, it is something that's already the windows, I believe the windows is definitely Yeah, yeah. And but I believe this is based. Mr. Ricky said that he had an estimate. And that's how he determined this cost and then it would go out to bid through the 30. Okay, perfect.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you very much. Great, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I didn't want to. Right, if they're, what is that I can't remember what that's called. It's the state bid list. Yeah, yeah. All right. All right, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli seconded by Vice President Collins to approve. Mr. please call.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. Any further public participation? Take public participation on any item that was not on the agenda. All right, Andy, name and address the record or Ellen. Ellen, name and address for record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I think there is only so much we can do. Most of the time, most people are respectful. I think we've made some strides even in the last few months from some less than respectful interactions. To be quite frank, I think this was a situation where somebody needs to check themselves. I don't know what else to say about that, but you know, we had an individual who has persistently and consistently not felt that he feels the need to respect this chair, particularly me, in a very personal way. So other than replacing me, if anyone wants the job, I don't know that that'll solve this problem, but we have had, we've tried to institute some decorum. I was able to, you know, now with the new system to shut off the microphone at the three minute mark, but I understand your distress. I share in your distress. I'm sure you could tell that I was frustrated and felt the need to combat it maybe in a way that I should have breathed through a little more, but yeah, sometimes some people, want to come here to make a show. And given that we are an open forum, it's difficult to manage sometimes.
[Zac Bears]: I think we could consider that for sure.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion? We'll go to Mr. Castagnetti. Three minutes, name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: I think exactly three minutes to boot. I think to Andy's point, Albert Einstein, and I'll throw in famed socialist Albert Einstein said, I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. And that's not a world any of us wanna live in. So let's hope not. Any further discussion? Any further public participation? I see no hands on Zoom, no one at the podium. Councilor Lazzaro. The motion to adjourn by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. President Bears. Yes. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: 20th regular meeting Medford City Council October 2024 Mr. Clerk, please call the roll Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. 24480, offered by President Bears, resolution to thank two DPW staff members for an act of kindness and their dedicated service to Medford. Whereas on Saturday, October 5th, quick thinking by DPW employees, Jeff Gangy and Anthony Pompeo helped return a lost wallet to Robert Bohannon, an 82 year old disabled veteran. And whereas Mr. Bohannon was deeply thankful to have the wallet returned, both because it was designed by his late brother and because the cards and information would have taken months to replace, describing the act, quote, as quote, as close to a miracle as we have experienced and, Whereas Mr. Bohannon and his wife wanted to express their gratitude and, quote, do something for these really thoughtful employees while noting that, quote, they wouldn't take anything and including his letter with the words, quote, we love Medford. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we thank Jeff Genge and Anthony Pompeo from our DPW for their dedicated service to the city of Medford and honor their active service and kindness that was described as Mr. Bohannon as, quote, the best of many great moments I've experienced in Medford. For me, we just got a really, really kind email and I felt like it was worth saying thanks. Anyone want to say anything? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Vice President Khan, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. Records, the records of the meeting of October 15th, 2024, yes, were passed to Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, you don't have to call the roll. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. reports of committees 24475 offered by council President Bears committee of the whole October 15 2024. This was the question and answer session that we held October 15 regarding the proposed override and debt exclusion ballot questions that are on the ballot on November 5. And just a point of note, as regards to the voting Councilor Scarpelli raised to me the point of the letting people know if you're coming in, we're seeing a lot of early voting, a lot of mail voting. And just a reminder to everyone, when you early vote or you mail vote, your ballot is put into a sealed envelope and that envelope is opened on election day and counted on election day. So if you're expecting it to run through the machine on the early voter, the mail vote, that's not how the state law around elections work. So those envelopes will be opened by the elections department staff on election day and then will be run through the machines on election day, along with all the ballots of everyone who votes on election day. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion to approve the committee report. Bye. Vice President Collins seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan all those in favor. Opposed motion passes 22379 22453 and 24470 offered by Council is our own public and health public health and Community Safety Committee October 16 2024 report to follow.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion approved by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by. Seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. 24069 and 24354 offered by Councilor Leming, Chair of Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, October 22nd, 2024, report to follow. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming to approve, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24033 offered by Vice President Collins planning and permitting committee October 23 2024 report to follow Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve the committee report by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to suspend the rules to take public participation, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Public participation. To participate outside of Zoom, please email ahertobeast at medford-ma.gov. We do have a petition from Marian Tomaszczuk. We have here October 23rd, 2024 petition to the Honorable City Council, Councilors, the undersigned respectfully pray for discussion of the well-used parking lot adjacent to the Medford Senior Center. So recognize Marian and we will go from there. Let me give you one second to turn on your microphone.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you to the members of the council. Does anyone like to respond before we go to members of the public? We'll go to Councilor Scarpelli. And I do have a response from the planning department as well.
[Zac Bears]: Would you rather go first? No. Okay. and then we'll go to, I'm gonna read the response, we'll go to councilors, then we'll go to the public. I have here to Council President Bears and honorable members of the council regarding the public participation petition respectfully submitted for your honorable body's consideration as additional information about activities concerning the municipally owned parking lot at 75 Riverside Avenue. Clippership pop-up as of October 9th, the corner of the parking lot has been repurposed to create Oh, sorry, repurpose to create the clipper ship pop up park, the pop up is utilized by the city, particularly the recreation department for periodic programming and is otherwise open for passive recreation to the public. To create the pop-up park, no parking spaces were lost. The pop-up area was created from what was a previously redundant drive aisle and six parking spots. To prevent any loss of parking, eight new parking spots were re-striped in the parking lot, resulting in a net positive for parking spaces overall. Please see photos below demonstrating locations of eight new parking spaces. Request for proposals Medford Square, the city published an RFP request for proposal for three underutilized parcels behind City Hall on September 30th, 2024. The city wants to garner interest from developers to explore what redevelopment options there would be for these three combined parcels, including mixed use buildings, affordable housing and parking structures. The city will enter a long-term ground lease for up to 99 years with a qualified developer for these parcels. The due date for responses is December 20th, 2024 at 1 p.m. Community outreach for this project was conducted through focus groups and community meetings through the Transforming the Square project in partnership with Metropolitan Area Planning Council in 2023. MAPC conducted research using previous plans and site visits of the square. Please note that parking for our seniors is a top priority for the city. The mayor explicitly mentioned this in her greeting to developers before the walkthrough last week. Construction employee parking. Due to the large-scale construction project at 121 Riverside Avenue, the adjacent Clippership lot has seen an influx of commercial and personal vehicle parking to accommodate workers and staff. As a result of this temporary parking situation, the mayor contacted Medford Housing Authority Director Jeffrey Driscoll to get a more complete breakdown of what vehicles are occupying spaces during the day, how long this disruption is anticipated and how a compromise can be reached to alleviate community concerns and allow accessibility to the worksite. The mayor concluded that there were up to an additional 40 cars due to the lot construction. Director Driscoll has been receptive and helpful. He reached out to the contractor for support Jim Silva, Special Project Coordinator, also visited the lot earlier last week and requested that the workers use the lower City Hall lot instead so that seniors had spots when visiting the Senior Center. It is a work in progress to get the construction workers to relocate, but we are doing everything possible as parking for our seniors is our priority. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. And I'll recognize Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Scarpelli. Any further comments? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. We'll go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes. And just procedurally, um, the next steps as far as I understand it, the memo mentioned that responses will be due December 20th. I believe then the planning department would come to this body to request our approval to authorize a land lease. So there would be further public meetings regarding the proposal, and it would require a vote of the council to authorize the city to lease the land. No, I'm just saying that that's the next steps for the RFP, sorry. But we will go to comments and everyone will have three minutes. Give me one second as I figure out our new microphone system. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I can speak to the process that the planning department is working on. I spoke with the planning director, Alicia Hunt, and she was at the Chamber of Commerce. I think last week they had a day where all the businesses in the square could meet with her and kind of have conversations about this. That includes the current chair is the Chevalier manager, Andrew Mather, and So that was something that happened, and I know that she relayed to me that there was a lot of excitement, but they did want to be engaged specifically around this question of parking. And one of the things that they were looking at, and I don't know if it's going to happen as part of this project, and it really depends on the proposals that come in from the people who are proposing, was seeing if the parking garage that is attached to Atrius Health could be redeveloped to be a more public parking garage. so that during the day it could be used by the health folks and at night potentially be used for other uses, because right now it's closed at night. But I don't think that would be the only answer, but that was just an idea that I had heard. In any case, there was a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce specifically about these RFPs with the businesses in the square. Thank you. Does anyone else want to speak on the topic Councilor Tseng, Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion on this public participation petition? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I need your name and address for the record to start off.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to Councilor Callahan, then we'll go back to the microphone for public participation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I do want to just make a point. I don't disagree with what you said and engaging people is really important, but I just want to be clear that going to the RFP was not the first thing as part of this process. This process references the 2017 Medford Square plan under Mayor Burke. There was a 2019 evaluation of development potential under Mayor Burke. the 2022 housing plan and the 2022 draft comprehensive plan. And there were multiple community meetings last year before the drafting of this RFP, including two at the senior center. So, you know, that work has happened. Maybe not everyone went to every meeting, but when we talk about what happened, I just think that should be noted. There was two public meetings at the senior center talking about this project and the transforming the square initiative.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I certainly don't disagree with that. I do know that the office worked with the senior center to get the word out. And I am hopeful, again, we heard from Dan Kennedy recently online about a city newspaper. We need that level of information and resource, but there have been meetings and we do do as much outreach as we can. And that doesn't always reach everyone, even when we try to reach everyone. We'll go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to the podium, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: In terms of the Colleen's behind there, that's not part of the scope of the request for proposal.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address the record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so we don't have the proposals yet, but the request for proposals document says that parking is a priority and that the senior center parking needs to be replaced in full no matter what develops. But the specific proposals such as height, et cetera, hasn't come out yet. And that won't be out until after December 20th, which is the deadline for the proposals.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion on this subject Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I would just note. that we did receive that they were well attended. We could probably get more information about that to share with folks. And I believe there are recordings available online as well. But it does tend to be as part of the planning process that you spend a the time to do the comprehensive plan, then you spend the time to do the community outreach, and then you put together the proposal. And then again, right, like, that's not the end of the public process. So it's a multi year multi stage planning process. But We're having a conversation right now, and people can come to any council meeting and talk about it, but we also will have further public meetings and public hearings as the process goes forward.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion on this item? Seeing none, we'll move to general public participation. Public participation on any topic not on the agenda. Yep.
[Zac Bears]: I saw him just the other day.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion or anyone who'd like to participate in public participation on any item that's not on the agenda for the rest of the evening? Seeing none, is there a motion on the floor? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to revert to the regular order of business, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. 24484, resolution to adopt local options of HERO Act, whereas Governor Healey recently signed into law an act honoring, empowering, and recognizing our service members and veterans, also known as the HERO Act, Chapter 178 of the Acts of 2024, to increase benefits, modernize services, and promote inclusivity for veterans in Massachusetts, and whereas the HERO Act allows local option in which cities may tie property tax exemptions and veteran-specific exemptions to the Consumer Price Index allowing for automatic year-to-year increases in these exemptions. Now therefore be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the City of Medford accept General Law, Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 22i, which authorizes an annual increase in the amount of the exemption granted under General Law, Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 22, 22a, 22b, 22c, 22e, and 22f, by the percentage increase in the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for the previous year as determined by the Department of Revenue to be effective for the applicable exemptions granted for any fiscal year beginning on or after July 1, 2025, and be it further resolved that the City of Medford accept the General Laws Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 22J, which authorizes an annual increase in the amount of the exemption granted under General Laws Chapter 59, Section 5, Clauses 22, 22A, 22B, 22C, 22E, and 22F by up to 100% of the personal exemption amount subject to the conditions in Clause 22J to be effective for applicable exemptions granted for any fiscal year beginning on or after July 1st, 2025. And we do have attached here the memo from the Division of Local Services of the State Department of Revenue regarding the HERO Act. and I believe Councilor Leming has also discussed this with the assessor. We'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: That was what he on the motion of Councilor Leming to refer this paper for legal review seconded by Councilor Kelly and is there any further discussion.
[Zac Bears]: Go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Right. I'll go back to Councilor Leming in just a second, but I was on some of the email chains and we can get that. Ted has already said he doesn't expect it to be a significant impact on the overlay. And yeah, but I'll go to Councilor Leming, he had more of the conversations than I did.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Megan. I mean, I would note DLS literally gave us sample language here and that's the language we're using. I personally don't think this needs to go to KP for however long they're going to take on it. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: It's really written, but if we want to just get a letter from the assessor and then we can take it up in two weeks or something. And if KP can get us something in two weeks,
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So I think that would mean that would be a motion to table till the next regular meeting and request a memo from the assessor and legal if they can provide one.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. On that motion by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favor. All those opposed. Motion passes and this is tabled to the next regular meeting pending those requests. And Councilor Leming if you could just ping Ted, and maybe Nina for KP. And the clerk can coordinate with you on that. 24489 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved, a resolution request information on review of fire department policies and procedures. Be it resolved that the city council receive a copy of the final report and any additional preliminary information recently completed by the consultants that reviewed the Medford Fire Department policies and procedures. Be it further resolved that Chief Evans and consultants attend the next council meeting to explain the findings. Be it further resolved that the details in the consultant's report have any recommendations involving the designs of our fire headquarters and that its findings be immediately presented before the November 5th override vote. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to members of the council first. Anyone would like to comment on the item? Seeing none, Chief, if you would like to speak, you're more than welcome to. It's your call, and then we can go to members of the public.
[Zac Bears]: I believe the request is for the report for the consultant to be released.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Is this an amendment to the resolution to request? It says here right now, consultants attend the next city council meeting. Do we want to change that to a future council meeting?
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion by members of the council? Vice President Collins. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We can open it to public participation. We can take people at the podium or on Zoom. Seeing no hands on zoom and no one at the podium in the chamber on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli as amended by Councilor Scarpelli seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor. Opposed motion passes. 24490 offered by President Bears and Vice President Collins amendment to the zoning ordinance mystic Avenue quarter district for full to the Community Development Board. This memorandum contains draft text for the following proposed zoning changes, amend section 94 dash 2.1 division into districts page two. Amend and section 94 dash 3.2 table of use regulations table a dimensional standards page three, and then section 94 dash 4.1 table of dimensional requirements table be page nine, amend section 94 dash 12.0 definitions page 10 and insert section 94 dash nine dot x mystic Avenue quarter district page 12. And I will go to Vice President Collins in just a second but just to say, this has been discussed I think we've had 13 committee meetings on the zoning updates project and the planning and permitting committee meet in planning and permitting committee. This was referred out last week, procedurally the next steps are that we would now refer to the Community Development Board, they will hold a public hearing. then they will refer it back with amendments or without to the City Council where the City Council will hold a public hearing. And at that public hearing, the City Council would vote to adopt finally. So there are two more public hearings on this proposal and I will go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: on the motion to refer to community development by Vice President Collins seconded by Councilor Leming. We'll have further discussion I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just want to know. I don't think any proposal for 12 stories on Salem Street. it's I think it's I know I just I know. I just want to put it out there. You know, if anyone is thinking that that is not been discussed at all, um, it would be, I think, significantly out of scope. I do have the innest proposal that we accepted here. Um, and project deliverables number two meetings. This phase includes the meetings throughout the process. Um, And there's meetings city staff monthly for the length of the project. City Council 10 to 15 throughout the three phases updates the Community Development Board one in each phases one and 22 and phase three public workshops to. steering committee, six to eight stakeholder interviews, 12 to 15, four to five per phasers targeted to phases one and three. So that is what the proposal was. And I do know that NS Associates and planning department have done a lot of one to one discussions with folks in different neighborhoods. And I think something that we've discussed, as we discussed in the committee meeting last week, is trying to just be more clear and direct and use more of the city resources that are available to say, and our goal is to do this a month in advance. Here's the meeting at which we will be talking about this specific area, and to try to use the city resources of the robocall system, as well as the different newsletters and digital outreach to inform people in each neighborhood, an area about that. the limited technological capability of us to hold public meetings in a hybrid fashion anywhere except for this room. That has been a limiting factor, but we do want to get that out there in advance of each specific area of discussion so that folks can say, I live in this neighborhood, here's the meeting about my neighborhood, I can voice my input at that meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: That's a good point. That may be a typo. We should just note that for Innis and the planning department as it moves through planning development, community development board, they can correct that and send it back to us amended.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I will note, basically, We haven't won one of these districts before. I don't think as a council, this council, Community Development Board will refer back an amended proposal to us. We could then make amendments at the public hearing. If we feel we can either, we don't have to accept all the Community Development Board amendments, we can make additional amendments. I'm just trying to look at the map from our last meeting, but I'll go to Councilor Collins, if you're finished. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, and I'd note that question resource I know someone who was just hired as the communications director for the parking department in Cambridge. So, it's not to communication search for the city it's like one person per department which is wild level of resources that I would love to see the city have just one note, the difference between MX one and MX two is the step backs. So that's why there would be a change in the massing. I was just looking at the map. That was a helpful reference point. It is still maximum six in the MX two, but the step back is different versus the MX one on the motion of vice president Collins, seconded by council. Let me to refer this amendment to the community development board. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public? You can raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium in the chamber. We'll go to Melanie Tringali. You have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, a lot of those are based on the existing use table. CDB means Special Permit Granting Authority is the Community Development Board. One thing that we're planning to do at the end of the project is realign the use table and take a second look at the special permitting, special permit granting authority for the uses. But most of this, basically anything that's not a new use, which I think is highlighted in bold, is essentially following the special permit currently in the use table.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, on the motion by Councilor Collins seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven the affirmative, none the negative. This is referred to community vote. Communications from the mayor 24485 dear to the honorable president members of the city council regarding proposed way to just for the parking union I respect the request and recommend the city council approve the following amendments to the revised ordinances chapter 66 article two. parking effective July 1 2022 increased base salary of all parking union union titles by 2.25% effective July 1 2023 2.5% effective July 1 2024 3% effective July 1 2025 2.5% effective July 1 2026 2.5% human resources director Lisa Crowley is available to answer any questions thank you for your kind attention to this matter respectfully submitted Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. I will go to Vice President Collins and then Director Crowley.
[Zac Bears]: I think she's available for questions. Do we have any questions for Director Crowley? I have one or Councilor Callahan looks like we have one there.
[Zac Bears]: I think this probably reflects a recently negotiated collective bargaining agreement. Go to Director Crowley.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And what's the expiration date of the contract?
[Zac Bears]: Go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve this paper and waive the three readings so that it's approved tonight, and that means that it can get processed faster. It doesn't have to wait for advertising and then wait another month. Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, Director Crowley, is there anything else you'd like to add?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. All right, on the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: The motion passes and this paper is approved and the way readings are waived so this is ordained to 4486 offered by may bring a current recommendation for Community Preservation Committee appointments. We have two papers here we have dear President various members of the City Council I respect the request and recommend that your honorable body confirm the appointment of Misha gender of Medford to the Community Preservation Committee for a term to expire, September 10 2025. And then I have here, please let this serve as a formal recommendation for the appointment of Maisha Jumder to the Community Preservation Committee to fill out the remaining vacant mayoral appointee position with a term of one year. And that came from Teresa Dupont, who we have here. So I will go to Teresa, and we do have the appointee here as well. If there's anything you'd like to add, and then we can go to members of the council. One second. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, and I'm happy to read before I recognize you. Maisha Majumder has been a resident mentor for several years, having been a Tufts graduate and staying local to our community. While at Tufts, Maisha studied civil engineering and quantitative economics, as well as urban planning. After Tufts, Maisha continued her studies at the Fletcher School, studying international finance and international development environmental policy. Currently, she works for a solar and energy storage development company, where her team builds community solar projects nationally. Maisha's professional portfolio can be reviewed at maishamajumder.com. And we have some commonalities here. We have our solar industry professional Councilor, Scarpelli. We have our Tufts graduate who stuck around, Vice President Collins. So we'll go to Maisha now, if there's anything you'd like to add.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. Does anyone have any questions? Just welcoming you, and that's what everyone's saying. So we will move to, is there a motion on the floor? Motion by Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng, even though Councilor Collins used the request. So I'll go to Councilor Collins if there's anything you'd like to add.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Seems like we're all in agreement here on the motion by Councilors are probably seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clark, all those in favor. Opposed motion passes. Congratulations, and welcome. Oh, yeah. Cool. Are you sticking around are you done. No, no, I don't think you need to, I just wanted to check. All right, 24 487 offered by the mayor capital stabilization fund appropriation requests. We have dear President Bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves the following appropriations, the capital stabilization fund, engine three truck pump replacement in the amount of $51,643 and 24 cents, cemetery soil removal in the amount $120,000 and zero cents, grant match for the municipal vulnerability preparedness action grant for updating the 2019 climate change of vulnerability assessment and developing an urban forest master plan in the amount of $24,600. and zero cents and city hall Howard all the memorial chambers window restoration and the amount of $322,500 and zero cents. As your honorable body knows any appropriation from the stabilization account requires two thirds majority vote of the city council capital stabilization fund currently has a balance of $3,923,737. given the appropriations made by the Council of the State, if all of the above are approved, the Capital Stabilization Fund would have $3,404,993.76 that remains. Fire Chief Evans will be available to answer questions. Well, Chief Evans is here, DPW Commissioner McIvern's here, Paul Riggi's here. So we can go first to engine three, truck pump replacement, we'll go to Chief Evans.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I do have us penciled in December 11 for a meeting on stabilization funds capital planning. Okay, thank you. There's the B paper by Councilor Scarpelli to request an update on the, the capital plan regarding the fire apparatus, the trucks. Any further questions for Chief Evans on the pump repair replacement. Seeing none. Thank you, Chief, and we'll move next to cemetery soil removal and the grant match with Director McIvern, or Commissioner McIvern, my apologies.
[Zac Bears]: Great. We will go to Councilor Callahan. Oh, yeah, I touch it.
[Zac Bears]: This is in the back, if you've ever been, it's a giant pile of dirt.
[Zac Bears]: It's like a pile of grass now.
[Zac Bears]: I know as a member of the MMA's Public Works Committee, Mass Municipal Association, we talk often about the cost of remediating and removing soil. Yeah, and it's a huge expense.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I'll go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Great, we'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further questions on the soil removal? Seeing none, we'll go to the grant match on the MVP action grant. Anything else on that? Anything else you want to say on that, Tim? Nope. All right. Then we can finish out with all the memorial chambers. Then we can take public participation on the item. We have Howard Alderman Memorial Chamber's window restoration. I'm guessing this has something to do with when I walked in here and there was broken glass after a windstorm. maybe hopefully more than that too, but I will go to Director, Facilities Manager, Ricky. Facilities Director, Ricky.
[Zac Bears]: I'm doing well. Thank you so much for being here and sticking with us through the pandemic.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: All right, then we will go to Councilor, anyone else? I just have a question, Paul. I'm assuming it'll be like historically accurate, but also environmentally, we'll be looking at, you know, modern windows to address the heat issue and make sure that we're keeping heat and cool air in the chamber. I know that's a huge problem as well with these windows.
[Zac Bears]: because of the historical status of the building. And these are the original windows, right?
[Zac Bears]: So they're about 85 years old or so. Yes. All right. Any further questions on this? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Are you invoking that on the whole paper? Yes, please. All four items? All right, on that invocation, this is tabled to the next regular meeting. Thank you, Director Riggi. Thank you to everyone who came out tonight. 24-488, offered by the mayor, transfer and acquisition of rights in the public way. Dear President Paris, members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend your honorable body approve the following transfer and acquisition of rights in a paper way. along Dexter Street, which will allow the mayor to enter into an agreement to release the city's rights to one half to the reference paper street in exchange for the city acquired rights to the other half of the same paper street. We have the building commissioner available to answer questions. And I'd like a motion to waive the remainder of the reading this is just seems highly technical and I'd like someone to explain it on the motion of Councilor Tseng seconded by second by Councilor Scott to waive the reading all those in favor. Opposed motion passes we'll go to the Commissioner. And are you representing the city. Great, we'll go to the Commissioner and then we'll go to you. Thank you for being here.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: It's an interesting location.
[Zac Bears]: I'll go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great.
[Zac Bears]: And these are the properties on technically actually on East Albion.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, if you look at the state property map, you can see the paper way between 2 Joseph and then the city's parcel at 0 Albion. The three next to each other. Yeah, that are all abutting 86 Dexter, that long lot. Any further questions by members of the council? Seeing none, we will go to the council. Are you council for the? Great. Great. Let me turn on your microphone. Just give us your name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by Seconded by Councilor Leming. Any further discussion? Seeing none, and it seems like everyone's on the same page here. I will go to Councilor Gallihan.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. Yeah. And it's right across the street from the Missittuck School in the Columbus Park. All right. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: The motion passes. Thank you so much. Any further discussion unfinished business etc. Seeing none on the motion to adjourn. by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passed, meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: So two years ago, a little past that. We had a little bit of a disagreement, I would say, the mayor and I, over the budget. And, you know, and I think it's important to sort of like, just be straight up, right? Council had some serious questions about the budget. We wanted to talk about an improved budget process. We wanted to talk about the underfunding issue. Council Vice President Collins and I were, had identified the need, the significant underfunding and the excuse of what type of funds to fund operating expenses. And that budget went to the last, I think, 2 a.m. meeting, the Mayor came out, and at the end of it, we made some improvements to the budget, and we talked about what we'd do the following year, and that budget actually passed, I think, unanimously, or at least the Councilor and I next to me voted for it at the end of the night. The next year we came back and we took a bit of a different approach, really focusing on what would a better budget process for the city look like. And what ended up happening, the council collectively again unanimously put forward a set of budget requests, budget demands in a sense. President Morell at the time, Nicole Morell and I went and met with the mayor and we sat down and we said, here's what the council wants. We want a better budget process, we want more funding for our schools, we want more funding for our library. And what we were able to negotiate on behalf of the council as council leadership with the mayor was three things. The formation of a financial task force, consisting of the leadership of the school committee, the city council, and the mayor, the commitment to establish a new budget process through a budget ordinance, which we passed this year and used in this year's budget, starting the process earlier than ever in the most transparent way possible, and the commitment to really address this issue of underfunding. And that's what the financial task force did. We've released, again, multiple press releases. We announced it at the budget time last year. We announced the formation of the task force, and then we announced
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I think the Mayor can speak to it too, right? Just to get to this budget, we basically didn't do $3 million worth of looking at the Mayor for it, because she did approximately $3 million worth of stuff that we wanted to start doing this year about that on the city side. So, when you talk about having enough people to make sure that city government is performing its basic services, just another impact if it doesn't happen. You know, we're talking, I think you guys mentioned it before, right? Not only would we likely have to cut many of the things that are funded by one-time funds, but there certainly would not be an opportunity for the city to add a staff member in a key office. That's where it's currently needed. The other thing I just want to say, going quickly back to the grant side of things, grants are 99% of the time one-time or short-term funds. Whether it's one year, two years, or three years, eventually the It's not a sustainable way to fund a permanent operating budget. The reason we're talking about an override and talking about property taxes is because it is a permanent revenue source to fund ongoing expenses. And the great sad impact of Proposition 2.5 was that sustainable revenue went away. You know, DPW 40 years ago had twice as many people working here. Now we're talking about just having people to work there to fill potholes, because we don't even have that anymore. And I think that's a legacy both of the Proposition 2.5 law and 45 years of not being willing to say to the voters, yeah, this is hard, but we need to ask us to come together and fund these things. Otherwise, they're not going to get done. And as Dana mentioned, then it just snowballs and gets worse and worse and worse.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, and I just want to make kind of two points. I think what the mayor said about there are things that are not set in stone and need to be tweaked, I think that's important. I think we've heard from some folks that there are tweaks that they would like to see made. I think this question of the clean zones and the phasing for folks, firefighters coming back from a firefighter, from a fire. Some questions around showers and bunk space. But there's two things here. Voting yes on question six is about voting yes on a five and six mechanism, not a final design. The State Department of Revenue has very clear guidelines that say minor project changes, inflationary adjustments due to construction and timing can adjust the size of the bond slightly. It's not gonna jump from a $30 million bond to a $40 million bond. It's not gonna happen, but it might be from 30 to 31 or 32 if there are minor project changes that need to happen. So my hope is, as the mayor noted, there's a concept design. It's not a final design. There's been statements at the Council Q&A last week from firefighters around things that they would like to see different, and I think we can vote yes on the financing mechanism, and my hope would be that as the design moves from a concept design to a final design, those project changes can happen.
[Zac Bears]: The mayor mentioned earlier the exemptions available through the assessor's office. They are the maximum exemptions allowed by state law. Only state representatives and state senators can increase them. The council and the mayor's office have been really intentional about maximizing, making sure that we're doing the most that the state allows us to do, and then tying our own exemptions to the state law so that if it ever goes up, Medford's go up automatically. There's been some talk that seniors could be exempted. There's nothing in the Proposition 2 1⁄2 law that allows that. It just doesn't exist. It's not true. So it's a difficult situation. We are doing, as a city, the most that the state law allows us to do to try to protect all the people that the state law allows us to protect through exemptions. We have the deferral program. Yes, there's 5% interest on the deferral program, but again, that is what the state law allows. I think we maybe could reduce that to as low as 2%, something we could look at 4%, so we're at 5 and you go down to 4, thank you. We could look at that, but we'd still have to talk to assessing, you know, and what would the impact of that be? There's the work-off program, but again, I think Anna's point is incredibly restrictive about what it allows municipalities to do. I wish we had a very different local tax system that could much more target and direct the impact and who's paying what taxes, but we have a flat property tax with limited exemptions, and that's what the state wants.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think just to add to what Jenny said, you can also just not make decisions, right? And I think that's the other thing. Camps have been kicked out of the road for decades. Some good things have happened. There have been projects that have founded the norm. I think the new schools project is one of them. But most basic maintenance, basic staffing, fixing 100 Having enough staff to do the basic job of what a city needs to do has basically just not happened, and now that has created a massive debt that is coming due. It is a difficult inflection point, and it sounds like the library is closing soon. But there's another thing right there. Our library is not open on Sundays. Most libraries are. Our library closes early on Saturdays. You can find every department, every single thing that the city does. It's generally a little less than most other places because we don't have the funds to do it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, Madam Chair. Again, I think we need to talk about what the process actually was in the RFP, which discussed us having specific public meetings around specific proposals for specific neighborhoods. This is a public meeting on the Mystic App proposal. We can talk about the process that got us here. Again, robust, extensive, comprehensive planning over two years. feedback from thousands of residents, et cetera. When you read the RFP, when you read the contract that was awarded, we talked about holding public process and public meetings throughout on specific proposals for specific areas. We've had multiple meetings to generate this. We're now having a meeting on the final draft proposal coming out of committee. It goes to council for automatic referral to Community Development Board, where there'll be another public hearing on this proposal. a community meeting, whatever we want to call it. There's public meetings ahead on this proposal specific to Mystic Avenue. And that's the process. So we are having the public meetings and engaging the residents. on these proposals based on the two plus years of public engagement and community engagement that's already happened to develop the city comprehensive plan. We're now executing on literally years of community process and engagement around this issue. We've heard from residents around Mystic Avenue multiple times on proposals and on the ideas of what was in the comprehensive plan. And now we have a draft. This public meeting is occurring. There will be the meeting to refer this to the Community Development Board. The Community Development Board will have a public hearing and at every step along the way, community members will be engaged and are being engaged in that process and will have continued voice even beyond the voice that's already been part of this process to inform this plan. So I don't know specifically what the request is. If it is to have a public meeting, That's happening and has happened and will continue to happen.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just wondering, Paula, in the memo, you noted that we need a little more study on like what the community solar incentive would be. Are we thinking that that would be something that the research could be done like, well, this is being also at the public meetings for the Community Development Board and could maybe be included as a recommendation from the CD board or at the final council hearing on this? Or do we need more time than that?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: about how we communicate this process, and I mean this for all stakeholders here and those who have been part of this so far. We are doing a comprehensive update to the zoning ordinance. We're breaking that into pieces, as was discussed in the RFP, as was discussed in our first 13 meeting of this committee on this topic so far, because we want the public to be able to access the different pieces of the project as we move along. But instead of saying, I mean, we could have met, you know, 25, 30, 40 times, and then had a document at the end of it, you know, and had a 200 page document that here's the new zoning. I don't think anyone would have really been able to understand that in the way that this process is working. So that's why I think we just need to be really clear. And I think we need to tighten up a little bit how we're communicating this out, right? each of these stages as part of this comprehensive zoning update. Right now we're working on the Mystic Avenue Corridor District. That is the district boundaries. What uses do we want in that area? How does that align with the comprehensive plan and all the public participation up to this point? The goal of this committee, and I think we need to maybe really put out a very specific calendar and probably work through this together in our meeting. Um. Committee. You know, our steering meetings here of the goal was to have essentially two meetings a month. Where one meeting was discussing districts and one meeting was discussing global changes like what director Hunt said around parking, and I think we need to put out a calendar going forward that says. Here's the district that we're working on this month. here's the global change that we're working on this month. Here's the date and the time of that meeting. And, you know, the, and just really like lock that in and lock that down. I understand we need to have some flexibility as questions come up, but, um, I think putting that out is going to just behoove all of us to a, keep us on track, keep us on plan, but also to make sure that, um, folks feel communicated to about this and, So I just really think we should probably sit down in our next meeting and say, OK, November, we're finishing up the Salem Street corridor district. That's what we've already talked about. We're looking at this set of global plans. I think we're doing that in memos. And I think like those of us who are maybe like in this committee. and especially those who are in the steering part of the process understand what we're doing. I just don't think we're like putting that out in a communications way really effectively. So I just wanna think about how we can do that where we move forward from here. And also, I just wanna note, like, I appreciate that we can, you know, look at further studies and look at finding more grants for more studies and things like that, and I think that that's useful in some cases, but I think the goal of this process as outlined in the RFP is to do the comprehensive rezoning of the entire zoning ordinance and to rezone the city. And if there are studies that need to go longer than that, then I think we should think about that in the way that Director Hunt and Vice President Collins were just talking about, right? We can implement this change now. And if there's a study where we're not going to get the grant funding for a year, we can come back and further fine tune that. But I just want to make sure that we keep moving along this plan so that at the end of this process, we have that comprehensive zoning update that matches the goals and action items from the comprehensive plan And then that's the thing that can then be further updated, right? I think that's the base document for the city planning for the next 20 to 30 years. And then we'll have those additional studies and long-term pieces of things that will further inform tweaks and changes down the road as market conditions change or new industries pop up or whatever it may be. But I just think there's like a little bit of communications work that we can be doing that would go a long way. And so I hope that we can work on that going forward.
[Zac Bears]: And even more so, I think it's actually less granular. I think we've done that, but it's like a slide in a presentation or a paragraph or a section in a memo And I think, you know, I'm just thinking of like how people access information and, you know, if someone doesn't open the memo or watch the meeting or see the presentation, it's really more of a presentation question to me than anything else. Like, how do we take that information that we've already kind of discussed and put out a little more formally and turn what is a slide in a presentation into a flyer, something like that.
[Zac Bears]: took us on a bit of a tangent there. I appreciate everybody going through it. I did have one question going back to the development standards. I know that we're hoping, or the plan is that at the end, there's kind of a realignment of the development standards. And that probably coincides with the catching of like the artifacts and other quirks that end up happening because of the way that we're doing this. Would the intent of that be that there would be like a development standard section that's outside of the corridor specific sections and what basically would there then just be like a development standard section and then it would have the corridor separate breakdowns within them or just could we go a little bit more into that? Just want to clarify that for myself.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Thank you. I appreciate that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just wanted to say thanks, Martha, and I wanted to know what you just noted. Chair Collins, which is that, you know, the most recent, I mean, I think there's a few language changes that aren't yet up on the Civic Clerk website, but Um. Draft as a Friday on the map as a Friday are up at, um, our council agenda portal and attached his files there. Um. And appreciate the comment about flexibility. Um, it looks like. The C two. The zoning. I think it actually a but a commercial and an auto In Somerville, and then about so residential, but I think it's worth certainly. As this moves through the planning board, if they want to take a look at that, the community development board. Um, if there's something we could do there, but that math inspection site, and then the used auto shop immediately to it's. East those are actually in Somerville. Um, and it looks like there's, I can't quite read the summerville map right now. Um. or I can't quite tell exactly what they put there. It looks like it might be a mid-rise three district, because I have seen those very narrow, very thin housing units, which I've always been interested in. It seems like a great way to use an interesting lot for affordable housing. But there are actually auto uses on the Somerville side as well, abutting that C2 on Mystic Ave.
[Zac Bears]: Second. I also have a minor amendment
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just a slight language amendment to move to refer the draft Mystic Avenue zoning. Quarter district proposal. To the council. Next regular meeting. Um. So just be clear that it's the missing Avenue
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. 24475 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. be it resolved that the Medford City Council hold a question and answer session to discuss the definitions and terminology regarding the proposed Proposition 2.5 overrides and the proposed debt exclusion measure. To that resolution, the following amendments were added. Councilor Scarpelli asked that the administration and Council on Aging do outreach to seniors about this meeting. Councilor Callahan requested outreach to parents of school-aged children, not just teachers, and specifically requested outreach to the PTOs. Councilor Tseng requested general outreach and specifically requested that the community liaisons translate into other languages the information that is on the city website about the overrides and the debt exclusion. To ensure that the council is able to answer questions in a timely manner and that decorum is maintained, the council president, myself, will be enforcing the following rules. One, members of the public will have one minute to ask one question. Members of the public will not be able to ask a second question until all who seek to ask a question have had the chance to ask their first question. The president will verbally request that residents not ask duplicative or largely similar questions to questions that have already been answered. and may move to the next question if a duplicative or similar question is asked. Each Councilor will have up to two minutes to answer per question. The president will verbally request the Councilors not answer if a duplicative or largely similar answer has been given by another Councilor and may move to the next question if a duplicative or similar answer is given. After members of the public have had the chance to ask their first question, the president will open the floor to either a second question or a short public comment by members of the public in attendance. And before we start, I just want to say, that the council itself is in mourning today. Last night, we lost our city messenger, Larry Lepore, who has served us for many years. We will be having some condolence remarks made at our regular meeting that will begin after our committee of the whole meeting. So I hope that folks will stick around if you knew Larry or otherwise to say a kind word or story that you may have shared with him during his many years serving the city behind this rail. With that, I do want to invite our city assessor, Ted Costigan. The council had requested some answers and updates from him, and I know that he's here to share some information that his office has been working on. So with that, I will go to our assessor, Ted Costigan.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. And then we'll go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. And per council, you mean legal council? I don't know that I was on that email.
[Zac Bears]: Was I on that? I believe it was.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Thank you. She means legal counsel, right? Yeah. All right. Good. I didn't want her to think about this council. All right. Thank you. Um, with that, I'll go to our city assessor and let me know when you want me to put slides up. The new mics are coming on Thursday. Shane's going to come out. He's going to fix it. I hear the chair moving. Thanks, Shane.
[Zac Bears]: There we go. Thank you, shane.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, sure, and just thanks, Ted, I wanna appreciate your hard work getting this done. In October, it usually gets done in January, so it's appreciated. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks Ted. Just two more questions. One, given your estimates, if neither of the overrides pass based on your estimates, the tax rate would once again be going down.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And before today, when you had the approved fiscal 25 values, would it have been possible for anyone to provide an update using anything other than the fiscal 24 values or an estimate? Anyone from the public, not from your office.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. Any further questions from members of council? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: So we're going to say that happens every year.
[Zac Bears]: Generally, the CPA was included in the calculations presented.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Ted. Really appreciate the hard work of your office. Just want to note, certainly this council, and you've shared some recently, has taken several votes to maximize the exemptions allowed by state law. If you see anything more that we could do on that front, I believe in 2022, we voted to tie it to the law so that we wouldn't have to constantly be updating it as the state did. If you see anything, please let us know. Certainly our intent is to be maximizing everything, and I believe we have.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. We will do that. Thank you. Okay. Okay. All right. I'm going to read off the rules one more time. We're going to move to question and answer. All right, so we're gonna follow the following rules for this part of the meeting. Members of the public will have one minute to ask one question. Members of the public will not be able to ask a second question until everyone has had a chance to ask their first. I'm gonna verbally request that we not ask duplicative or largely similar questions and may move on to the next question. If a duplicative or similar question is asked, Councilors will have up to two minutes per Councilor to answer each question. I'm requesting the Councilors not provide duplicative or largely similar answers to answers that have been already provided by other Councilors and may move on to the next Councilor for an answer if that happens. And after members of the public have had the chance to ask their first question, we'll open the floor to a second question or a short public comment. And I'm going to be alternating between the chamber and Zoom. So we will start at the podium. Mr. Castagnetti, you'll have one minute to ask a question and then we'll go to Zoom after answers from Councilors.
[Zac Bears]: You got your minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Andy, thank you. That's a minute.
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead and say the sentence minutes up.
[Zac Bears]: Let's just hold on here, guys. Like, I can't believe we're doing this on the first question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Andy. Does anyone have a response? Your time. Anyone want to answer the question? Councilor Lemke, you have two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll move on to the next question, unless anyone else has an answer. Thank you, Andy. We'll go to Michelle B on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have one minute to ask your question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Vice President Collins, then
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Council President. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Just gonna say a few things really quick. The council, oh, I'll go to, okay, I'll wait. Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming. Two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, nope, one time, sorry. It's question eight, yeah. And any other councilors wanna go? I'll be quick, give myself two minutes. I just want to list it out. Two literacy interventionists, two behavior specialists, one nurse, four teachers, and four department heads. Those were cuts that were postponed because we used one-time funds this year to plug the hole. There's another 25 positions, two school Councilors, four classroom teachers, two security monitors, One attendance and re-engagement officer, five paraprofessionals, and 12.2 additional staff members that are on one-time federal funds this year. So it's about 35 to 45 staff in the schools. We would not have a permanent dedicated street and sidewalk crew to use the machines that we already own. We don't have enough staff in the DPW to actually run those machines four times a week. And there would not be significant room for looking at additional compensation for educators, paraprofessionals, and staff in our schools, whether that's just to raise their pay, because it's a contract year, or whether that is when we're talking about extending potentially 10 to 15 minutes to school day to align vocational with the comprehensive high school schedule. or just to address any issues on time on learning. So thanks. That's what we would lose. We will go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you have one minute to ask one question.
[Zac Bears]: So that's not actually how the tax rates calculated. The assessor just presented the information. The levy changes based on the two and a half and new growth. So it's only about 6 million this year, not 13 million. And generally that amount is only going towards fixed costs. So we have union contracts, increasing health insurance costs, increasing retirement pension costs, increased costs of materials and pavement. So that's generally what the normal two and a half new growth increase goes towards.
[Zac Bears]: Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Does anyone else want to answer that question?
[Zac Bears]: Any other questions from answers from members of the council? Seeing none, we'll go to the next question on zoom. We'll go to Lizzie Charbonneau. Lizzie, you have one minute to ask one question. Please provide your name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to Councilor Leming, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: So let me thank you. Thank you. Go to Councilor Scarpelli of two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Go to Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng, and then Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, thank you. The train's gonna zoom in on it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. I think everybody went on that. I'd like to avoid everybody answering every question if we can at all possible, but everyone did give a different answer, which is appreciated context. I'm just going to be brief myself to ignore my own advice and say, light poles are falling down. We had a meeting two weeks ago where a light pole fell on a public way, and luckily it happened at night, so it didn't hit a car or a person and hurt them. I mean, that's the situation that we're in. We have finally, appropriated some funds to a capital stabilization fund. We have a paper on the meeting at seven o'clock to look at that. We are in a historic multi-decade deficit where we have massive needs. The free cash that is being spoken of is spoken for. It is spoken for, it needs to go to our roads, it needs to go to our schools, it needs to go to fix things that are already broken. And thank you, please stop, thank you. And that's just reality. If we use that to plug operating budget holes, we'll have to plug those holes with new revenue in the future. We can't wait for the new growth from our new zoning, which will take five to 10 years to propagate. And I don't think any of us want more light posts falling in the sink, we certainly should be grateful that so far they've only been falling at night. Thank you. We'll go to the podium for the next question. You have one minute to ask one question. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your question. Would anyone like to answer the question? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other one? No, that's all I have.
[Zac Bears]: Two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you. Councilor Callahan. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Rick, Rick, come on, Rick.
[Zac Bears]: Don't shout in this room. You know better and you wouldn't take it if you were, you wouldn't take it if you were sitting up here, Rick. Don't, let's not go down this road. Come on, everyone, stop. Let's not go down this road, guys. It's really not needed. Councilor Callahan, you have the floor.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we'll go back to two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: 10 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Wrong. Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Tell them the truth, Councilor. Thank you, Councilor Callahan. As a member of the financial task force, it was very clear. We actually had a lot of public meetings called fiscal 23 budget process, fiscal 24 budget process, fiscal 25 budget process. I think a lot of folks remember if you're watching those meetings, me sitting in that chair in 2022 and being pretty hard on this mayor because we didn't have the information that we needed. and working to establish a task force, working to establish a budget ordinance, working to establish a flow of information, and hear from stakeholders, all the stakeholders that were mentioned in the question. What do we need? What are we not seeing happen? Why are we in the situation that we're in? That resulted this year in the earliest budget process we've had with meetings before we got the budget, input from the council and the public before the mayor presented a budget, and a full and accounting of what our serious structural deficit is for our schools and for this city. We know that we need more money to do what people want the city to do. We're asking the voters to do that, and that's what it is. If the voters say no, then we will have to make cuts, and we will do that, because that is what the voters decided. If the voters choose to vote yes, then we will have the financial resources that we need to do our jobs. That is essentially what happened, and that is essentially the choice before us as a community. When we want to talk about the financial task force, was announced in a public meeting. There are a bunch of public releases from that. Every step of the way, we're starting to meet. Here's what we're talking about. Here's what we're considering for the framework. Here is the final framework. The specifics were discussed extensively in council meetings and school committee meetings for a year, that these were our budget needs. Thank you. We'll go to the podium for the next question. Mr. Jones, name and address the record. You have a minute for your question.
[Zac Bears]: And I'm going to give you another 15 seconds. I just want to say for folks who have joined since I started the meeting, We're going to be talking about Larry at our meeting after this, and I hope folks have something they want to share. We'll stick around. We want to hear.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, so there was no- It was Councilor Morell before January. Councilor Morell, okay.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Vice President Collins, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, anyone else? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Just, I wanted to answer your question. Okay. I think you heard a good story, but the fact of the matter is, There were five members of the financial task force, the council president, the council vice president, the chair of the school committee, who's the mayor, the vice chair of the school committee, and the chief of staff for the mayor, who administratively runs city hall. Those were the members of the task force. Those were the members of the task force. Did we talk to other people? Absolutely. The $3 million number comes from the school finance director from the fiscal 25 budget process. $500,000 number for the DPW street and sidewalk group comes from the DPW commissioner. The $4 million number for the question eight, that comes also from the fiscal 25 and 24 school budget process from the finance director, from many of the administrators in the Medford public schools talking about, this is what we need to do the things that people are asking us to do. And the $30 million bond number for the fire headquarters came from the mayor, the chief of staff, and the fire chief based on the design process for the new headquarters. That's where it came from. It's not a bubble. It's not we didn't talk to anybody. It's not we made things up. There have been documented meetings. We talked to other people. We engaged the folks who have the information in the city and said, if we're trying to address these problems, what would it cost? And that's what the proposals are. I mean, it's plain as day. We have, again, public statements and documents for a year talking about the process, the membership, the framework, and the final result. We have budget meetings and documents for over two and a half, three years, dozens of recordings of this body and the school committee talking about these needs. So I encourage folks to look at the last three budget processes, because they'll pretty much get you exactly the numbers that you'll see on the ballot on November 5th. And that's why we're asking voters to vote yes. Thank you. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Jones. Thank you. We'll go to Zoom for the next question. We'll go to Zoe Moutsos. One minute to ask your question. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to members of the council to answer that question. Councilor Leming, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: They're not needed right now.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to Councilor Calihan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to Councilor Collins. Two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone else from the council want to go on this question? Just to Councilor Leming's point, there was the $34 million certified balance at the end of June. $6 million went to a stabilization fund. $5 million went to a capital stabilization fund. $1 million of that has already been spent on emergency capital repairs. $3 million went to the MSBA feasibility study. The mayor also outlined an additional $9.5 million, $2.5 million for fire department fleet replacements, $2 million for the pension liability, which we have to fund by 2034. $2 million per year for fiscal year 25 capital improvements, $2 million for fiscal year 26 capital improvements, $1 million to match federal and state money to renovate the Hegner Center. We also have the estimated $15 million that we heard the other week from Assistant Superintendent Cushing to fix the HVAC at the Andrews Middle School and McGlynn K-8 school. Councilor Callahan has noted the $67 million in road debt, $35 million in sidewalk debt, People have noted the school water issue. As Mr. Belson said, we made money on those schools, but apparently we did it because we didn't put the right stuff in for water. So I just spent all 35 million right there on things that are urgent, right there. We're still gonna have to prioritize these urgent capital needs with that free cash and stabilization fund money.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's plus there's the money in the stabilization funds. Yeah, I just went beyond that though.
[Zac Bears]: It's not a scare tactic. It's just math. It's just math. That is the need of the community. I could not name you a community in the state. Is that the math that the task force has? Councilor Scavalli, please don't interrupt me. Thank you. I don't interrupt you. Please don't interrupt me. Thank you. Those are the figures. Those are our needs. Those are the capital needs of the community. So I think, The math is pretty clear. Go to the podium for our next question. One minute, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Anyone wanna go for that? Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: It's just a clarification. It's not a follow-up, thank you. What's the question?
[Zac Bears]: Well, we're not doing that, so I'd appreciate it. What? We're just asking one question.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go, we'll think about it. Who's next? Councilor Leming. I'm just trying to enforce the rules. Let me rephrase that. I'll think about it. Councilor Leming. Oh, we're giving the answers. Councilor Leming, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, anyone else wanna answer the question? Sure, Mr. President, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: 30 seconds? Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. What is it? You're over by 20 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: No. You'll get it on the next round, I'm sure. I'm sure you'll get it on the next round. I appreciate it. Anyone else want to comment here from the council? You already went, Vice President Collins, sorry. No one gets mad when I don't let Councilor Collins talk. I'm just trying to enforce the rules here. If you have a quick clarification on the kind of data you're asking for, I'd be interested to hear it.
[Zac Bears]: I can answer that and I'll put my clock on. So for much of it, for the school budget, yes. The school budget director outlined in the budget meetings in April and May and June, this is what would be cut if we didn't have these funds. And this is what would have to be cut if we don't have these funds in the future. So in that case, it is an exact one-to-one. And that's true for all of question seven. When we talk about the DPW, the director said, to run the machines four days a week instead of two or four days a month, I need this much staff, this is how much that crew would cost. Absolutely. For the debt exclusion for the fire station, Councilor Scarpelli already noted, right, we have bond capacity, we're maxed on our bond capacity, we have a library on the bond capacity, we have a police station on the bond capacity, we have school, MHS labs on the bond capacity, we're pretty much maxed on the bond capacity here. And, okay, well,
[Zac Bears]: You're wrong. It's in the budget. You're wrong. I'm not wrong. I read the thing. So when we talk about the information that's available to the public, there's information from the school budget process, from the city budget process that outlines these needs very clearly. There have been charts and tables and narratives and whatever other form of data analysis you want has likely been presented at these meetings. So there is information out there, there is data out there, and when we talk about the decisions made by the financial task force, while other members of the city staff were not members of the financial task force, they were consulted, these issues were discussed with them. So that is what it is. And we can continue to try to present the math and information in a different way. And I'm sure that we will continue to try to get that information out there as best as possible. But the city has incredible needs, significant needs, and funding is needed to meet them. Thank you. I only have one hand raised on Zoom, but it's iPhone 109. If you would please rename yourself so that we know that you're a person, I'll then recognize you. Until then, I'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have one minute for your questions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone wanna go for it? I can do the financial task force part. Anyone wanna talk about the sufficiency of the size of the override? Councilor Leming, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone else want to go on this? Councilor Scarpelli, anyone else? Councilor Scarpelli, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, one second. We're still answering the question from Mr. Givino. I saw Councilor Saint and Councilor Collins, and I have an answer about the financial task force.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I think I got it on the task force. Thanks Mr. Gimeno for the question. So when we talk about sufficiency of the override, in the public documents that have been repeatedly asserted don't exist, but are of course public and on the website, the financial task force has said that we believe that this override and debt exclusion is sufficient. along with whatever needs to be done for the high school, which we all knew always was going to be an independent question to allow the city's planning and development work based on the comprehensive plan and the zoning recodification and ongoing zoning work to take effect to begin to raise the funds. So yes, right now in the public documents that have been released, I think both the March document and the June document talk about that question. We believe that not only is this the best path forward for the city's financial health, but that the amounts are sufficient that we would not be coming back in the next five to 10 years outside of a Medford High School question to address the city's financial health and challenges. When it comes to the Financial Task Force question, Financial Task Force was not a public body, did not include, for example, members of the public, appointed citizens, etc. It was an internal body to City Hall. similar to project meetings in different departments, interdepartmental groups designed for different projects. So that is why it was held internally and not in publicly posted meetings and public meetings. I'm gonna go to Zoom. We have Deanne I. You have one minute for a question. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: I think you said 451, but it sounds like you got the 51 right, so it may have been a misspeak.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, sometimes we just have a little misspeak. All right, anyone wanna answer those questions? I can get money where the money goes, but if anyone else wants to go for it. All right, in terms of where the money goes, $3 million from Question 7 goes to Medford Public Schools to replace $1.7 million in one-time funds that were used for Fiscal 25 to cover positions to address the inclusion of federally funded pandemic aid positions and to address maintenance costs, $500,000 would go to DDPW to hire staff to have a permanent in-house road and sidewalk repair crew, and $4 million would go to the school to address a number of issues, mainly collectively bargained issues around pay for teachers, paraprofessionals, staff, addressing the issue of the school day, and potentially also addressing issues such as coaches, stipends, and transportation, depending on what is prioritized during the next budget process. And for question six, that is dedicated to a new fire station.
[Zac Bears]: I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Callahan. Two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: That's what I ask all of you. So thank you. Appreciate it.
[Zac Bears]: It is a sustainable source of revenue.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, specifically it would be appropriated if they were passed, there would be an appropriation in the first year. The appropriation would be as outlined in the ballot questions in future years, budgets would have to be cut in order to reappropriate those funds. So, um, and I don't think anyone behind this rail has ever supported cutting teachers or the school budget.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have one minute to ask your question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for the question. I can go to other folks, but I do have the answer, I think. So in terms of the temporary versus permanent, question six is a debt exclusion. So it's temporary in the sense that there's the $30 million amount for the bond. The $2 billion that you cited is an estimate for the annual debt service cost. That estimate was created to try to give folks an understanding of what that might look like on an annual basis on their tax impact. So that's a temporary until the bond is paid off. For question seven and eight, those would be permanent. Those are overrides intended to be permanent increases to the levy limit to fund ongoing operations. In terms of the line items, I believe there is a page on the city website right now that does outline the specifics that I just said in terms of the 3 million for the MPS and 500,000 for the DPW in question seven and the 4 million in question eight. I can look at seeing if the city might be able to also add a graphic there, but I believe if you go to medfordma.org, there's a button right on the front page that says override information, and it does outline the line items for each specific question to the greatest extent possible.
[Zac Bears]: So we do, it would be 3.5 million for question seven and 4 million for question eight.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And that's the max, it can't go higher than that. And those are not funding any sort of bonds or debt exclusions. Those are for the override. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: That's not the format here. We'll take public comment at the end.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just on the point about question six, Department of Revenue guidelines, it can be for the bonded amount. It's not written into the question. That's because of how the Proposition 2.5 law is written. but it is for the $30 million plus minor project changes. It is not a blank check. It is not just an open thing. Department of Revenue has extent, the State Department of Revenue has extensive guidelines on this. So if there are minor project changes or construction related inflation adjustments, those could be included, but they have to be minor. If there's a significant increase to the budget, it would have to either be going out for another bond funded by another revenue source or funded by an additional debt exclusion vote of the people. Thank you. I'm going to go to Zoom. We have Christina Roberts. Christina, you have one minute to ask your question. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to the podium, name and address for the record. You have a minute to ask your questions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for the question. We'll go to members of the Council. Councilor Lazzaro, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just getting there if we could just maintain decorum. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're going to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Um, I mean, I can answer the question more specifically or vice president Collins, but, um, if you don't mind, mine is on a different part of the question. This what?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. On this specific question, when we were looking at the financial state of the city, we said, what is the biggest capital obligation that the city is going to have over the next five to 10 years, other than a high school, which we've excluded from everyone acknowledges is such a big project needs to be handled on its own. It was a new fire headquarters. We can get into the back and forth dispute over should there have been a combined headquarters? Should this have been 10, 10 years ago? Those, quite frankly, were decisions that were made before I was even thinking about running for office. When we looked at that, we said, that's the biggest expense. If we ask the voters to do that as a debt exclusion, it means that bond capacity is available for many of the other things that we've talked about. Now we looked at that. There has been an owner's project manager hired by the mayor. The mayor has controlled the design process, has included, my understanding, chiefs, has not included the union or firefighters to the level that they've wanted to be included, and has never included this council in the design process. We're not part of the design process for the fire station. We made a decision based on the financial health of the community, based on the estimates provided by the designer, the mayor, and the fire chief, that a $30 million fire station is what they think will need to be built. The design is not finalized. My understanding is that changes can and are being made. But to us, it was a separate question. The design process is not something that this council has been involved in. But the financial health of the community is obviously something that we work on during the budget process. And so identifying this project as what should be funded by a debt exclusion was how we made that decision.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Collins, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you for this question. All right, we'll go to I'm a little wary. Bill on Zoom, if you could provide a last name or a last initial, we'll go to the podium. Damon, address record, you have a minute to ask your question.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I mean, I will give you I wasn't expecting you to go around the rules here. My point was not that the people involved did a bad job. My point was clearly this was an issue that was missed. And there was a comment made by someone very involved in those projects at a political event, quote, we made money. And I think that that's just something that should be entertained as maybe also maybe not representing the work or the goals of that committee. Thank you. So you can have your question.
[Zac Bears]: I've sat down with some people who are on that committee. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Thank you very much. You have a minute to ask your question.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. I know I'm going to go for that two minutes. Council vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're not going back and forth. Anyone else want to go on this question? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes. We, we can talk about water sewer infrastructure for another couple hours if we want. Um, it's a big problem. Anyone else have a answer? Mr. Lenders question. Sure. Councilor Scarpelli two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just to get specific, when we talk about the needs in the classroom, 85% of the school budget is salaries and staff, 15% is non-salary and staff expenses. Likely the vast majority of both of these questions through collective bargaining will end up going to either hiring more staff or paying existing staff more. The specifics outlined in the fiscal 25 budget process by the schools are eight classroom teachers, five paraprofessionals, two literacy interventionists, two behavior specialists. I think those are all significant impact on the students in the room. A nurse, a school administrative assistant at the McGlynn, which right now is operating with one administrative assistant instead of two for a complex of over 1,000 kids. We could say those aren't in the classroom, but I think we know those would help. in the classroom and help kids as well. So those are the real life impacts of what this would go to fund, nevermind the idea of paying paraprofessionals a living wage, hiring more staff to reduce class sizes or other things that would be possible through the collective bargaining process with the teachers union and the paraprofessionals union. We'll go to Zoom. We have Bill O'Brien, name and address for the record. You have a minute to ask your question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone have questions or answers on that? Councilor Leming, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, anyone else? Sure, Mr. President, if I can. Councilor Scarpelli, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Collins, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. I'll leave it there. Thank you. Number one, I appreciate your comments, Councilor Collins. Number two, I wanna say very clearly to the question, why did we pass the budget? When I'm talking about, someone have their phone on, someone watching in the room? If you could take that out of the room, please. Well, you gotta, just don't wanna have it backlogging in the, thank you. Just to be clear, to answer the question, when we're talking about collective bargaining agreements, we're talking about future contracts, not current contracts. As was noted, that's not recommended by, I think, councilors who disagree on the substance, it's not recommended to use free cash for operating budget issues. Certainly it's not recommended to use free cash to negotiate contracts. So we're talking about the capacity of the city to negotiate future contracts. I think that was the question asked by Mr. O'Brien. We'll go to the podium, name and address the record. You have one minute to ask your question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're over by about 20 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your question. Anyone want to take it? Councilor Callahan, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Callahan. All right. Please stop interrupting the proceedings. Thank you. Councilor Leming, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know. It looks like she left. Oh, sorry. All right. Good.
[Zac Bears]: Talking with the assessor's office, their estimate is that given declining interest rates for municipal bonds, given the contingency already in the project, and also the DLS, sorry, DOR, State Department of Revenue guidelines around debt exclusions, that it would essentially stay around the $30 million total cost for the debt service, for the bond, yeah. Yeah, but the interest rate would be, set when the debt is issued. We'll go to Zoom, Sharon Diesso. Oh, sorry, you wanna go? Sorry, I didn't see your hand. Go ahead, Councilor Scarpelli. Sharon, you have to wait a minute.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think anyone's saying that.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to Sharon or Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Zoom. Sharon Diesso. You have one minute. Name and address for the record, please. Please ask your one question.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have a question, Sharon? You have 10 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Sharon. I'm just following the rules, guys. I think everyone needs to take a deep breath before groaning. Anyone wanna go? Councilor Scarpelli, anybody?
[Zac Bears]: Her question was, what were the alternatives that could have been found that are not the overrides and debt exclusions?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Leming, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone else on these questions? Councilor Callahan? Councilor Tseng? Okay. Just to be brief, you know, we have had for the last three years, the best three years of new growth in the city in the last 25 years. Those are just, again, the facts. They're on the DLS webpage. We can't disagree with data and mathematics. Data and mathematics are not fear tactics. They are just the facts. Alternatives, there was no way in the short to medium term to raise reliable, recurring, sustainable revenue to fund operating budget expenses, except for asking the voters to fund those expenses through an override. The property tax levy is the vast majority of the money that the city brings in. The state is not providing the city with significant new aid. The city departments go above and beyond finding federal and state grants. They are looking far and wide for them. Just because we don't receive them doesn't mean we didn't apply for them. And to be honest, a lot of the formulas and ways that those things are decided are not favoring places like Medford. because the state school formula looks at our city and they say, Oh, they should pay more in property taxes. We're not going to send them more state aid. That's literally how the formula is written. It's based on capacity for a city to do so. So when we are 93rd out of 97 for property tax revenue, when we are 94th out of 97 for per capita spending, we are where we are. The state's judges us based on that reality and says, we're not giving them more money. So, Again, we came together over dozens of public meetings over three budget cycles addressing needs of the city and the school department and said, this is the best way to raise sustainable recurring revenue to fund city operating budget expenses. We believe this is the best path forward in the short to medium term. And we are going to ask the voters to make that decision. The voters are, the voters are going to vote. We'll see what happens. I certainly hope they vote one way. Other Councilors may hope that they vote another way, but I don't envy anyone in any, I don't think any of us are going to be excited to do the budget if these funds are not available. We'll go to the podium, name and address record. You have one minute to ask your question, name and address.
[Zac Bears]: Please address your questions through the chair.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Merritt. Anyone wanna go for that one? I have some answers on the Cambridge fire station, why it's not a good comparison, but go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: The Cambridge Fire Station was a historic renovation of a historic 125-year-old fire station. They were installing geothermal energy. It's just completely incomparable to the project that we're talking about in Medford Square, which is a knockdown. Again, the cost overruns were mainly due to historic preservation issues. and projects that they were trying to add in there that are not things that we're trying to add to our station. Anyone else on the question? Seat down, we'll go to Zoom. We have Micah Kesselman. Micah, you have one minute. Name and address for the record, please. Please ask one question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone want to go for that? Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Leming, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I think the question was specifically, how would free cash become a sustainable solution for ongoing operating expenses?
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli, question is how would free cash be a sustainable solution?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Stroud. Anyone else on this question? Seeing none, we'll go to the podium. Is it Simon? All right, Simon, you might have to bend the microphone down a little bit. Oh, nevermind.
[Zac Bears]: A direct and simple question. Anyone want to go on that? I'll go. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll take this one, Simon. I'll go to Anna, and then I'll go. Anna?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And Simon, thank you for asking your question. I know you've been at a few of these meetings now and you've asked a few questions now. I know you remember some meetings from the springtime of the school committee where we were really worried about whether we were going to be able to keep all the teachers and the paraprofessionals and all the other people in your school who try to make your day a good day and make sure you learn something. Um, we were able, uh, this year to keep most of those people by using the one-time funds that we're talking about, um, that the city had staved up, but in the long run, um, it's really difficult, uh, for us to keep that promise if we don't have the money to keep paying people. So, um, question seven, as Anna noted, um, would allow us to make sure that we can keep everybody on, um, who's there now, we don't have to look at asking people to leave, firing people, laying people off. And question eight means that the city and the schools have a lot more opportunity to give our teachers and the people in your school the pay that they deserve to have more staff in the schools to help out in the classroom. And if we don't, see a yes vote on those two questions, it's going to be a lot harder for the city to do those things. So, um, we're, we're going to do our best no matter what happens. And one hard thing about democracy that you might be learning pretty young is sometimes people don't agree with you. And sometimes people make a decision that you don't want them to make. And if that happens, we're going to do our very best to try to make sure that everything stays okay. Um, but if people do say yes, it'll be easier for us to do that. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. All right. We'll go to Zoom. We have Jess H. Name and address for the record. You have one minute to ask one question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your question. We'll go to Councilor Collins and Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Anyone else on this question? I can just note quickly that the one-time funds used to avoid cuts this year that were postponed saved two literacy interventionists. I think two positions were eliminated and those could be restored. There's also talk about the curriculum around literacy and what that would take to implement. I do agree with Councilor Lazzaro that, you know, talking to school committee, school administration, they'd be able to provide more information and details. And I don't know if either of those solutions would help your child or your specific situation, but I do know that paying our paraprofessionals more to reduce turnover, help students with disabilities. I know that investing more in interventionists and specialists helps our students with disabilities and the school having more resources to do that would help. Thank you. The person on Zoom is Micah Kesselman. So we'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record. You have one minute to ask one question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone want to talk about that? Councilor Callahan, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I believe that's based on time on learning statistics issued by the district. Well, I believe that's where the information is coming from. Councilor Scarpelliletti, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: That's two minutes. So thank you. Thank you. Could you please, next time, give me that 10 seconds. Sorry. No, I appreciate it a little bit. All right. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Let's just take a pause here. It's been three hours.
[Zac Bears]: The state formula doesn't work.
[Zac Bears]: Hold on, everyone. Can I speak, please? Thank you. Thank you everyone. Three hours in, we've been pretty good. I appreciate everybody. We've had a difficult conversation.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think anyone, I think there's been a lot of back and forth. Cheryl, I don't want to talk about commenting on aggressiveness. We can interpret people's comments in many ways. I think you would agree. You don't want unfavorable interpretation of your comments and neither does councilor Zara. And I think we're going to leave it at that.
[Zac Bears]: To your point, we do. We constantly advocate for more state money. To your point, and I'm putting my two minutes on now, the state formula is not good for Medford. Even with the Student Opportunity Act, even with Chapter 70 money, given the charter formula, given the reimbursement formula, it's bad for Medford. Even with a 5% increase in ELL, which is one of the big sources of funding in the Chapter 70 formula, we're not getting a lot more. The main reason for that is because of our estimated you know, minimum contribution as a city, what the state plans to give us. And a lot of that is based on what is the city's capacity to pay for things itself versus the state. Malden gets $60 million a year in net aid for their schools. We get 11. Well, I mean, you know, I would, I would love to, I would love if the formula treated us better, but it doesn't because essentially because of our property values. I wanted to get to your point, um, specifically on these questions, question eight, it's not just for the high school schedule. It's that's one thing. That's one of three things. It's high school schedule alignment so that vocational and arts kids can do both. It's expanding classroom instructional opportunities district-wide, whether that means more staff or more teachers, and it's classroom teacher and paraprofessional compensation, so paying existing staff more.
[Zac Bears]: I can read you the question. Shall the city of Medford be allowed to assess an additional $4 million in real estate and personal property taxes for FY 25 general operations of the Medford Public Schools to create a high school schedule that increases access to arts and vacational programming, expand classroom instructional opportunities, and for classroom teacher and paraprofessional compensation for the fiscal year beginning July 1st, 2024? That's the whole question. It's for all three of those purposes. The district spends 85% of its budget on salaries. And the reason it's not more specific is because to get more specific would be to violate collective bargaining laws. All of that has to be bargained. So it gives us the money to have that conversation with our educators. And these have been ongoing questions. So I'm really hopeful it passes because I'd like to pay our teachers more. I'd like to pay our paraprofessionals more. And I'd also like to fix the school day.
[Zac Bears]: We're going to move to the next question. We'll go to...
[Zac Bears]: Matt, let me run the meeting today. Thanks. We'll go to the podium because the person on Zoom has already asked a question. Name, address, record. You have one minute.
[Zac Bears]: Is that the whole question?
[Zac Bears]: Cause I know the rest of the question.
[Zac Bears]: I'll give you 10 more seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for the question. Does anyone want to go for it? Councilor Collins, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Anyone else want to go on this question? Anybody else on the question? All right. I'll just say for one bill, I'll go. I think it's actually a symptom of the same problem. to go 25 years without addressing and correcting that issue is the same reason that we're talking about all the other deferred questions, deferred issues, deferred things in the scope of it.
[Zac Bears]: 25 years of not adjusting that compensation amount. Right. It went from 2000 to 2024 without being adjusted.
[Zac Bears]: And so I think it's actually a symptom of the same problem.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not going to discuss. I'm talking in the big picture, Bill. We're talking about on every single thing. basically every single thing in the city, water, sewer, school buildings, fire station, funding of the DPW staff, funding of paraprofessional pay, the school day, the vocational. I mean, I could give you a 30 point litany list of things that the city spent 20 or 30 or 40 years not fixing. This was one of them. It was within our authority. It's a symptom of that larger problem. We fixed that one thing. Now we're asking the voters to fix a larger set of problems. And I don't think those things are incongruous. That's just my opinion. And I appreciate your question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone else on this question? I see none. We'll go to the podium, name and address for the record. You have one minute to ask one question.
[Zac Bears]: Anyone want to go on that? I really should be going last here.
[Zac Bears]: I'd like to not go back and forth guys
[Zac Bears]: Thank you um go to vice president Collins: two minutes
[Zac Bears]: Are you asking for a clarification?
[Zac Bears]: If you're asking for a clarification, you can clarify.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, all right. Just to your point, to your question, yes, we're talking about fiscal 26. Teachers contract, Paris contract, both expired June 30, 2025. So we're talking about a new contract year and the increased pay for that would be on the new year. That's if there are no agreements or side agreements settled before then. You know, we're seeing significant costs, essentially, all of the two and a half increase and most of the new growth increase are being used to pay for fixed cost growth increases on things that we've already committed to do, either in contracts or where we have mandatory spending on health insurance and pensions. So, yes, this would be for fiscal 26. We're currently, once again, this year, we're doing basically what Councilor Scarpelli said, we're using one-time funds right now to cover the budget. to try to get us through to a point when we have reliable recurring revenue, which the financial task force has put forward in the form of these overrides. And if that is not available, that's when in the it's next year, but it's the budget process is going to happen from February to June upcoming. It's in the next few months. That's when those decisions will be made. And whether or not we know we have the reliable, sustainable revenue to pay for those things, or we don't is dependent on the override questions. Councilor Callahan, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone else on the question? All right, we'll go to another question. Still someone who's already asked on Zoom, so we'll go to first time question. Two minutes, or one minute, one question. Name and address the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Vice President Collins. Two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Collins, I let you go way over, I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Councilor Leming, two minutes, then Councilor Lazzaro, then Councilor Tseng, then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng, two minutes. Or did I get that? Or was it Councilor Lazzaro? Councilor Lazzaro, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just wanted to, I did have a couple quick answers to your question too. It's okay. Bill keeps posting online something I posted, I think about five years ago where I said, I don't think we need an override right now. I want to explore all the other options first. And then we did, we explored short-term rentals. We explored marijuana revenue. We started on the zoning, which has borne some fruit and will bear more, but not fast enough. You know, we maxed out the local fees and stuff like, the hotel meals and rooms, et cetera, to the most, the state will let us do it. We're trying to get the state to open up the home roll petition so we can update the linkage fees for the first time in 30 years. I had a resolution on for a fee schedule update to look at the whole city fee schedule to which many of them haven't been updated in many years. So we're going to get a response back on that. All of that does not generate a significant enough amount of revenue to address the needs. That's why I feel that in all the six years of budgets that I've worked on and everything else, my answer to the question is, we've looked at all the other buckets that we have control over. They're no longer sufficient to address the need, and that's why I support these overrides. So that's just one piece of it. On the development, Somerville started its significant summer vision plans 20, 25 years ago. They started seeing the first fruits of that in significant way 15 years ago. It's really boomed the last five to 10 years. We're at the beginning of that process, not the middle, not the end. I wish we'd started that 25 years ago. I think I'd be much happier during budget season if we started that 25 years ago, because the decisions would be a lot easier. We're doing it now. It's starting to happen. I agree with Councilor Scarpelli. I don't agree with some of the legal proceedings that happened around 40Bs, but it's not the wholesome question here. Last thing I'll say, you started out with the teacher's compensation. Having talked to our teachers, having heard from our teachers union, our paraprofessionals union in this space and in the school committee, I know they don't feel like their compensation is sufficient and competitive. I know many of them feel pressure to leave for other districts. And I also know when it comes to benefits that there's been ongoing negotiation issues around the healthcare benefit for all of our employees, police, fire, DPW, city hall and the schools. So just wanted to put that perspective out there.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. One minute for one question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for the question. Anyone want to go for it?
[Zac Bears]: Anyone else? Vice President Collins, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone else? Councilor Lazzaro, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Danielle, I'm going to put on my two minutes here. And just say, a when we were discussing this, the reason that I support this is that I believe a debt exclusion is the best mechanism to fund the construction of a new fire headquarters in the When we're having the conversations, we have had some of the discussions that we've had over the last two months since the question came out. As you've noted, we weren't involved deeply in the planning process. There was an OPM that said, this is going to be the estimated cost of the building. Here's this number. And when we looked at the capital spending for the next five or 10 years, that's the biggest item. Sorry, I have a cold. I have something in my mouth, so it sounded a little funky. That is my rationale here, that this is the best way to fund a new headquarters in a timely manner and get it built. I tend to agree. I've read some of the stuff that has been put online when we're talking about the phased red, yellow, green, getting people out of that red zone. when we're talking about the arrangement on that second floor of the rooms and the showers and not being enough showers and bathrooms, I do believe that both of those would fall under the DOR regulations around minor project changes because they would be, you know, changes on the, essentially on the floor plan where things are, how many versions of things are. If there's something bigger than that, if we're talking about that would be something that would have to go further. There are options on that front. If it is a little bit over the 30 million, if we are talking about 35 instead of 30, you could go out to the bond capacity to do that. I would certainly be open to those. I have appreciated some of the dialogue that has been out there. I agree with councilmember the mayor and you, the fire union could get to a better place and be at a more collaborative place and that people would feel like their voices are being heard and included. I don't believe that the plan that's out there right now is the final plan. I don't think it will be the final plan. I expect that things will be addressed. Um, and I certainly expect that this council, if some of those changes are significant, would be supportive of providing additional funding for those changes. So that's my position on it. I tend to agree with some of my fellow Councilors around the timing. Um, as well. You know, we put it in this package because we believe this package is the one thing we're going to have to ask for other than a new high school until we start seeing that new growth be enough. So that's where I'm at. Thank you. All right. Thanks, Danielle. Next question. Name and address for the record. You have one minute to ask one question.
[Zac Bears]: I'll go to Vice President Collins. Two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, anyone else? Councilor Scarpelli, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor. Thank you. Anyone else here? Councilor Levee, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: All right. I'm going to go really quickly here. I think there's some questions around division. We are at an inflection point as a community. The community is changing. We're looking at new growth and development for the first time really seriously. We're talking about decades of deferred maintenance and underinvestment that are coming up now that we need to address. And I understand that paying more is a hard choice. I think it's a hard choice for everyone. I think some people feel that it's a choice that they can make. Some people feel like it's a choice that they can't make. But we have difficult decisions. And one of those difficult decisions is to ask people to pay for the things that the city needs to do. It's a very difficult decision frame. We've talked about all the different things that the city needs to pay for. I firmly believe, and my approach has been that the best thing we can do is ask the questions, present the information, get the budget out there, and then ask the voters to either elect people to make choices, which is most of the decisions, or even to make the choice themselves, which is what we're talking about with this proposition with questions six, seven, and eight. One thing I'll say is I don't call opposition talking points for your tactics. I don't do that. I don't say the opposition is dividing the city. That's just something I don't do. Councilor Scarpelli talks about the meetings that we should all look at to see what's happened. I'm pointing to people to those exact same meetings to watch those exact same meetings, because I think if they watch them, they'll see things from the perspective that I experienced those meetings from, right? At the end of the day, we're not perfect. Sometimes things get divisive. Sometimes certainly I react here or when I sat down there in a way that I'm not happy about, that's a little more divisive or a little more pointed than I wanted it to be. And I try to do better every time. I try to learn from those issues. And I think at the end of the day, there will always be outstanding questions. There will always be a process that could have been longer, that could have been better, that the rules could have been looked at differently, that people could have had more time. And I think you have to balance that against the priorities and the time that we need to make a choice, right? We could have a process for 10 years. And there's still be people with outstanding questions who aren't happy with the end of the process. And at the end of the day, I think that's what democracy is about. This has been a four-hour discussion of major tensions that people have, answering questions, trying to get to a point of agreement and stay in respectful dialogue. And I think that's the best that we can do. And at the end of the day, the voters will decide. The voters will decide on November 5th if these questions are approved or denied. The voters will decide next November. serves on this council, who serves as the mayor, who serves as the school committee. And that's democracy. We aren't all going to agree with it. I've been on the losing end of quite a few votes in this room myself. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I think the question is about why the property value is going up faster than the median or the average that the assessor presented. The assessor presented that just for this year, the estimated median single family tax bill would increase 195 year on year. So that's, I'm just looking at the slide he presented. It was just for this change from fiscal 24 to fiscal 25. I think, quite frankly, a lot of those questions we'd have to talk to the assessor. I'd be happy to try to set up a meeting with the three of us or the two of us if you don't want me involved.
[Zac Bears]: That surprises me.
[Zac Bears]: I can't speak to what the state laws are around assessment and how they come up with their formulas, but I'd be happy to try to set up a meeting. I would love that. We've gone extensively over on the question. I do want to give other Councilors a chance if any other Councilors want two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will coordinate, get the contact information. We can try to set up a meeting around the specific questions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Just realizing I would have asked Larry to do it. So another sad thought. Anyone else on this question? Seeing none, we'll go to the podium to our former chief. One minute for one question, chief.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I appreciate that. You want to go if I can first chief, we didn't have an opportunity.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Chief. I'll just speak for myself to say I appreciate your service to the city, coming down here tonight, laying out this case. A lot of what you've talked about has been coming out drips and drabs over the past couple of months. To me, to an extent, as best as I can say it, I think we are conflating two pieces of a question. There's the question of the design and the design process. From everything I've heard, it's not adequate. We're not at a final design. The final design needs to be improved, 100%. As I've read through letter from Danielle, things online, things like the clean zones and the space, and especially I know I've had some conversations with Todd Blake and the interim chief around how the design was changed relative to the MassDOT Mystic Ave Main Street project and how that's impacted things like turn radius and the apparatus bays. I have a lot of significant concerns about that. I still believe a debt exclusion is the best way to fund the fire station headquarters. Now, if 30 million is only funding 75, 85, 95% of that, A, it's not just 30 million, it's 30 million plus inflationary adjustments and minor project changes. So that 30 million bond could really be 32 to 35. If the changes can be made within that, then this debt exclusion continues to pay for the fire station headquarters. If it's more than that, you've said a number 40, 45 million, you think, potentially, I'm 100% in to say we need to look at the bond capacity or we need to ask again. for more. I don't think that voting no on this debt exclusion will get us to eventually a yes. That's my position on it. I think voting yes to the financing.
[Zac Bears]: And I didn't mean to put words in your mouth that you're advocating for that. My personal position is voting yes funds most of this project, the way that I think it can best be funded, the fastest way it can be funded. I didn't have all this information when we released the plan. Do I wish that people had acted differently so it would be easier to talk to the residents and get them to support things like this? As you're aware, as other folks here are aware, there are things that are not within this council's control within my control.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I personally agree that the communication needs to be better. It needs to be more of a seat at the table. I'm still going to vote the way I'm going to vote, because I think it gets us a lot of the way there on the financing question, even if I personally have a lot of problems and issues with the design and the design process as it stands. So that's just where I'm at.
[Zac Bears]: And I appreciate you coming down. And yeah, I think the other thing we've talked about a lot tonight is that the state is not doing us right in a lot of ways. That includes MassDOT and DCR on our streets and roads in general. And you know, they get to say, well, we're not going to spend the 6 million to redesign your intersection if you don't do it our way. And we don't really have a lot of recourse, even though I wish we did. So it's a tough situation.
[Zac Bears]: So if you've got a ramp that's 60,
[Zac Bears]: It sounds like a lot of heads need to get together before a final design happens. Anything else on this question? All right. I think we are. Thank you, Chief. We have someone who hasn't asked a question yet, and then we have a hand that has and someone in line that has. So we'll go to the floor, name and address for the record, one minute to answer one question or ask one question.
[Zac Bears]: It's on, you're good. Okay. And you shouldn't need to touch it.
[Zac Bears]: I can answer. Does anyone else want to go first on this question? I know Councilor Scarpelli and I have been in five tax setting meetings together. I don't know if you want to All right, residential exemption. It's not the panacea, it seems to be A. There is a breakeven point in the home valuations, where if you implement a residential exemption, if your value is above that, you actually start paying more. So if we implemented a residential exemption, I believe two years ago, that breakeven was almost exactly the average, around 768,000. If you're above that value, you actually start paying more. than you did without the exemption. If you're under that value, you pay less. Now, the reason this happens is essentially to do this, A, the council would set it, but it would be in partnership with the assessor's office. The assessor's office has said they probably need to hire two more full-time staff in that office just to process the applications every year. But essentially, you take what is the flat tax rate, across all residential, your 8.51 per thousand, I think is our FY 24 rate. And you create a 30% exemption on the tax of the average home. So 30% of the tax bill for a $768,000 home, that becomes your exemption. That's a fixed dollar amount. Let's say for just for efficiency sake, let's say that's $3,000. So if your tax bill is, uh, you know, $6,000, you get $3,000 off. Um, but that has to be shifted, right? So the city's actual tax doesn't come down. The city still needs to raise all the revenue it's raising every year. So that, that fixed dollar about actually also means that you increase the tax rate. So instead of having an 8.51% rate, you might have a 12.5% rate, but then you get the $3,000 off if you're owner occupied. So if you're getting a 30% rate increase, and you're getting a 30% exemption, if you're in a lower value home, you save money. If you're in a condo, you probably save money. If you're in an under low value single family, you save money. If you're in a multifamily, a high value single family, certainly if you're in a large apartment building, you're actually paying more because the tax rate's going up significantly. to cover for that shift. So essentially, it benefits some people in the community, it benefits people who generally condo owners, people in single families below the breakeven point. And it actually would result in increased taxes for people who have very high valued single family homes. Most multifamily homes are over 750,000 valuation apartment buildings are so we could implement it. We would need six months to a year to do so before a tax rate hearing, which happens in December. So we'd probably need to make a decision by April or May of the prior year. The assessor's office was ready to be budgeted to hire more staff to process the applications. And at the end of the day, it doesn't, it's not a panacea for everyone. I tend to support it anyway. I think it turns a flat rate wealth tax into a progressive rate wealth tax, where the rate is actually lower on lower wealth properties and higher on higher wealth properties. But it doesn't help everyone. It doesn't mean, if you're a senior and you're above the break even, you might pay more. So it's not, it doesn't help everyone.
[Zac Bears]: It certainly is.
[Zac Bears]: We consider it and discuss it every December. We basically have the conversation I just tried to summarize at our tax rate setting hearings. And I know there's been different perspectives on it. I've been a supporter because I generally tend to think that having that progressive rate system is a better approach than the flat rate. But similarly, I've heard arguments from my colleagues, Councilor Caraviello, Councilor Knight, who are not on the council, but they were, concerned about what if you're in a home value above the breakeven point and that's about basically about half of people who are owning properties. So I think it goes either way.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other stuff on the residential exemption? All right. Can you wait? Can you wait? All right. We are now, I think no one, has anyone who has, hold on one second, Andy. I'll make a brief though. Just one second.
[Zac Bears]: Has anyone not asked a question who wants to ask a question? Seeing none, we'll go to public comment. I'll take Andy, then I'll take Gaston for a second question, then we have Micah on Zoom. Mr. Castagnetti.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Andy. Gaston, either a question or a comment, and I'm gonna go up to two minutes for everybody for this last little section.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Gaston. Anyone else on that comment? I just wanna note myself, and this is just me being an economics nerd, and I'm really sorry to do this at 10 p.m. I like to use the PCE price deflator for state and local government. It's line 24 on the BEA table of the GDP price deflators. And if you look at that, it tells a little bit of a different story. Even when PCE for like the average person was 4%, for example, in 2021, for state and local government, it was 6.7. In 2021, it was, 7.1, 2022 for PCE, generally it's 8.0 for state and local. State and local price inflators tend to be higher than the PCE. It's PCE, but it's just PCE broken down for state and local. It tends to be higher. I appreciate your comment. I agree that the new growth element is a factor here, right? And I think Matt was saying over the last, since 1980, I can't remember the fact, it's not 2.5% that we've averaged, it's 3.1 or something like that because of the new growth. In the last couple of years, the new growth is significantly higher. So I think we're at like four, but we're also talking about 4% when we're looking at a cost increase of eight, right? So it's still running behind.
[Zac Bears]: Someone put out a great chart where it was showing the real, a nominal dollar increase and then it also had a graph of the inflation adjusted real dollar increase. And I think personally we're catching up for 2020 to 2023 here with this override.
[Zac Bears]: And to me, now we're going back and forth, and this is just because I- We're already gutting up. I enjoy this. I mean, I think this override catches us up to where we need to be, where the new growth, it fits to me what I'm seeing as this is the one time we're going to have to ask for this outside of the high school, because the new growth will get us there in five to 10 years. And this catches us up from the inflation adjustments that we need over the past few years. So, thanks. I like arguing about PC with people. We'll go to Zoom, and then we'll go to the podium. Zoom, I have Mike name and address. Second question, you have two minutes if you want to ask a question and make a comment.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further comments on that comment or question from members of the council? Seeing none, we'll go to the podium. Our esteemed election commissioner and former school committee member.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think we're going to go back. I don't think we're going to go direct on.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to adjourn the Committee of the Whole and move to our regular meeting agenda by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Fleming. Councilor Matt saying we have been going for a while. I need a little bit of a break and it will take us about 10 minutes to get the zoom going for the regular meeting. We do have a number of items on. So on that motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll or on this motion. All those in favor. Opposed motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: October 15th, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Present. Thank you, Councilor Kellogg. Vice President Peralta.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 24479, resolution to celebrate Sarah Bradley Fulton Day. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we encourage residents to attend the celebration of Sarah Bradley Fulton Day on Saturday, October 19th, 2024. Be it further resolved that we thank Laura Duggan and the city employees and volunteers who make this day possible. More information can be found at lookingbackatmedfordhistory.com. This is my paper. I'll just add there's also a reception at the library on Friday night. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I motion of Councilor Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 2-4-4-8-0. You know what? Motion to table this to the next meeting, if that's acceptable to anyone here. I can't make the motion. Can anyone make it?
[Zac Bears]: So I moved. All right. On the motion of Councilor Collins to table that to the next meeting, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: The motion to join and approve the approval of the records and reports of committees. Second. Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Councilor Scarpelli, how do you find the records? Thank you. Anyone who wants to comment on any of the committee reports? All right, all those in, we need another vote. On the motion to approve records and committee reports, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed, motion passes. Oh, was it a first joining up? Sorry, my bad. 24483, offered under suspension by Vice President Collins, be resolved at the Medford City Council hearing, update from the representatives. All right. What number? Okay. Are you withdrawing that paper? Are you withdrawing paper 24483? All right, paper 24483 is withdrawn. On the motion to suspend the roll to take paper 24482 by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24482, offered under suspension by the entire Medford City Council, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we hold a moment of silence in honor of our beloved City Messenger, Lawrence Lepore, who passed away last night from cancer, an Army veteran, Larry loved, lived, and breathed Medford. He loved City Hall. He loved his job as city messenger, and he loved working with this council and his colleagues in the clerk's office. He was a calming and steady presence at council meetings, and he provided wise counsel to anyone who sought his advice. We offer our deepest and most sincere condolences to Larry's family, to his friends, and to all who loved him, be it further resolved that the Medford City Council dedicate tonight's meeting in Larry's memory. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro, then Councilor Saint, then Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: You want to go? All right. Mr. Clerk.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm gonna go to Kevin Harrington from Medford Community Media, Kevin. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: We can hear you, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Kevin. I have some words from former President Morell here. She was hoping to be here, but I think in fitting for Larry, we had a long night. She says, I want to send my deepest condolences to Larry's family, to thank them for sharing Larry with the city all these years. who's an incredible steward of the city council and the chambers and was so dedicated to his role. He'll be truly missed both as an individual and for all he brought to this body. And I get the difficult task of going last, but Larry once said to me, so long as you're not throwing chairs at each other, it's a good night. Because I think he saw someone almost throw a chair at someone. maybe this side to this side. I think anyone who's only sat on this side has missed out sitting over here and seeing Larry's face and being able to make that eye contact with him. And sitting up here too, it's been interesting the first few months of this term, but I didn't get to know Larry as well as I wanted. I've known him for five years. The first few years were the pandemic. We were on Zoom. Larry's still coming to my house every day, every Friday, bringing the papers and whatnot, but didn't get uh, really to get to know him until we were back here and we were able to talk more before and after meetings during expected and unexpected recesses. Um, but I always like to think of it kind of how Councilor Scarpelli did. If you were hearing words of encouragement from Larry, he didn't have a great day, but he, he presented it in a nice way. If you're having words of respect from Larry, you had a decent day. He did. All right. And if you had words of pride from Larry, you had a really good day. And I was lucky enough to experience all three. I probably have a warped sense in my mind that may be more pride than encouragement, but it was really just helpful to be able to talk to Larry about just have all that knowledge, decades of knowledge of this body and these meetings, to talk to someone with a different perspective on a lot of issues, but then find a lot of common ground. And I know that he will be missed by this body, by the former members, by a lot of people in City Hall and certainly by his family. He was just a really wonderful, kind, caring person who I really enjoyed spending time with in the limited ways that I was able to. And I know there are a lot of people who got to enjoy a lot more time with Larry who aren't going to be able to share that time with him anymore. So I'm thinking of them because if I feel this way, I can only imagine how they feel. Thank you. The motion of everybody. Oh, we have some people to speak. Yes, public participation will take you.
[Zac Bears]: We don't, but we'll share it and the clerk's office will make it available and we'll get it around when we know more. And we're trying to also make sure that the city provides as many honors as we can provide.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Andy. Is there someone who can make Zack Bares and Andy Castagnetti and George Scarpelli all cry? That's a good guy. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Bobby, do you want to say anything? On the motion, I just, it looked like you stood up to speak. Did you want, all right, got it. Thanks, Bob. On the motion to approve and have a moment of silence by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. We'll take a moment of silence. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. President Pierce? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: All those in favor? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All right, I'll be quick, and Aaron can get home. Thank you to Aaron and Bill from the Election Commission for being here. We have our two calls to election, which we gotta get out the door. Be it ordered that the Elections Commission be and is hereby authorized and directed to notify and warn such of the inhabitants of the city of Medford as were qualified by law to vote for candidates at the state election on Tuesday, November 5th, 2024, to assemble at the polling places. in their respective wards and precincts, and then to give their votes for President and Vice President, Senator in Congress, Representative in Congress, Councilor, Senator in General Court, Representative in General Court, Clerk of Courts, Register of Deeds, and that the polls of said state election shall be open at 7 a.m. and remain open until 8 p.m., be it further order that the following name polling places be in or hereby ordered designated for use at the state election on November 5th, Ward 1, Precinct 1, Andrews Middle School. Ward 1, Precinct 2, Firefighters Club. Ward 2, Precinct 1 and Ward 2, Precinct 2, Roberts Elementary School. Ward 3, Precinct 1, Medford American Legion. Ward 3, Precinct 2, Temple Shalom. Ward 4, Precinct 1, Tufts University, Gantry Center, rear. Ward 4, Precinct 2, Walkling Court, Fondacaro Center. Ward 5, Precinct 1 and 5, Precinct 2, Missittuck Elementary School. Ward 6, Precinct 1, West Medford Fire Station. Ward 6, Precinct 2, Brooks Elementary School. Ward 7, Precinct 1, Mystic Valley Towers. Ward 7, Precinct 2, McGlynn Elementary School. Ward 8, Precinct 1, Medford Senior Center. And Ward 8, Precinct 2, South Medford Fire Station. And we also have the election warrant, uh, which is largely the same thing, but, uh, from the residents of the city greetings, we are required to notify and warn the inhabitants of said town or qualified to vote in elections to vote at the polling places. I just listed on Tuesday, the 5th day of November, 2024 from 7am to 8pm. for the following purposes to cast their votes in the state election, for the candidates of the political parties for the following offices, President and Vice President, Senator in Congress, Representative in Congress, Councilor for the 6th District, Senator in General Court for the 2nd Middlesex. I'll go to the Actions Commission if they have anything they'd like to add.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Member DiBenedetto and Member O'Keefe. We appreciate it. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve, Should we, I think we should probably take a roll call on each paper, just given the nature of it. I'm going to throw a chair. Great. Great. That's what we like to hear. Clean, fair, and well-staffed elections. All right, on the motion on paper 24447, the call for election. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll on Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Affirmative, none negative. The motion passes on paper 24478, the election warrant. Motion to approve. Motion approved. Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative and then I give a motion passes. Thank you very much. Good luck. Early voting starts on Saturday, right? Yes. All right. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to take papers 24472 and 244, 24, sorry, what is that? 4-5-7. 4-5-7, all right. Good night, thank you. All right, all those in favor, or second by? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24472, petition for grant of location, National Grid, Hale Avenue. So this is not the one that was on the table. You are hereby notified, sorry, notice for public hearing, petition of grant of location, National Grid. . Thank you. Medford MA, motion to waive the reading for summary. On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. This is a proposal, public hearing on Tuesday, October 15th, 7 p.m. Zoom link posted no later than Friday, petitioned by Boston Gas DBA National Grid for installing a new gas main in Hale Avenue, plan marked W01530950 Hale Avenue, Medford MA, date of July 20th, 2023, The purpose of this position is to install approximately 160 feet of new gas main in Hill Street in accordance with plan DPL MED 080248-1043 filed in the office of the city clerk. This has been approved by the chief engineer, city engineer with the following conditions. The engineering division recommends this grant application be approved with the following conditions. Granted location is limited to the approximately 160 feet of four inch gas main depicted on the plan. Before starting work, the contractor shall notify DigSafe and obtain all applicable permits from engineering division. Project must obtain a trench permit pertinent to section 74-141 of the city ordinances prior to commencing work. No other utility structures, conduits, duct banks, or other appurtenances are adversely impacted. National Grid shall insure all sewer, water, and drain lines are marked prior to excavation. Project site must be swept daily after installation or daily, shall be kept free of debris for the duration of installation, at least 72 hours prior to the start of the project. National Grid must coordinate and better communications with the Director of Communications and submit any required information that may be requested to effectively inform the public. call 7, 8, 1, 3, 9, 3, 2, 4, 2, 5 for any aids accommodation sign out about her to be city clerk. All right. With that, um, we'll hear from the petitioner and then we'll open the public hearing. Welcome. Thank you for sticking with us.
[Zac Bears]: OK. Any questions by members of the council for the petitioner? I gotta open a public hearing. Whereas this is a public hearing, I'll open the public hearing to people in favor, opposed, or otherwise having an opinion on this matter. Public hearing is open. Are you in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Petitioner in favor. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I got a close public hearing first, but then we'll take it. Sorry Anyone else either here on zoom who would like to speak during the public hearing? Seeing none the public hearing is closed on the motion of vice president Collins seconded by councillor scarpelli to approve With the conditions by the city engineer Mr. Clerk, please call the roll
[Zac Bears]: This is the request for amendment to previously approved grant location National Grid on Main Street in City Council September 10th, 2024 tabled. I believe we tabled to go to Councilor Tseng, who had some questions. So we'll go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: All right. We believe we have representatives from The team here will hear from the petitioner if there's anything you want to add to the record from prior discussions of the matter.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you. Does anyone have any questions for the petitioner?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just a follow up. Have there been any power outages of that nature recently that have... Not recently, no. When was the last one that you have? I don't know.
[Zac Bears]: At least a couple of years.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And when was that?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just, I was wondering if the engineer Could you state what the position of the engineering department is relative to the amendment request?
[Zac Bears]: All right. Given the potential, I'll just leave it at that. I mean, it is what it is. We have a motion on the floor. Vice President Collins, it was to not accept the amendment, to deny the request, seconded by Councilor Callahan. At this point, I'm just going to reopen the public hearing. public hearing is open. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the proposed request for amendment, opposed to the proposed request for amendment, or otherwise want to speak on the request for amendment? I think you're in favor of the request.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Anyone else on this item? Seeing none, we have a motion from Vice President Collins. to deny the request for amendment, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the, well, I'll declare the public hearing closed. Mr. Clerk, on the proposed denial by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Is that, it's a motion to deny, yes. A yes vote is a motion to deny the request for amendment.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. The request for amendment is denied. Thank you for your time. 24473 Capital Stabilization Fund appropriation request. Council, let me move to refer the paper with items to the next regular council meeting. That was at our October 2nd, I believe, Committee of the Whole. Paper is from the mayor. Dear President Bears, members of the City Council, I respect the request and recommend that your Honorable Body approves the following appropriations from the Capital Stabilization Fund. Replacement of the water heater at the Brooks Elementary School in the amount of $267,000. Roadway patching in the amount of $112,728. Replacement of light poles in city parking lots in the amount of $105,000. City Hall elevator repair unforeseen costs due to upgrades of electrical and fire alarm systems needed for code compliance in the amount of $75,000. Repairs of the Brooks Estate Use of funds must comply with city procurement policies and procedures and state procurement law. $5,000 as your honorable body knows the capital stabilization fund currently has a balance of 400. Yeah, I'm just gonna, it's more like two sentences out has a balance of $4,538,465 given the appropriations made September 17, 2024. If all the above are approved, the capital stabilization fund would have $3,923,737. That remains any appropriation from any stabilization account required the two thirds majority vote of the city council. We discussed this. We have a committee report. We asked our questions. Does anyone have any further questions or comments on this matter? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, is there any further discussion? Any discussion in public participation? I will go to Mr. Castagnetti. Is this on the stabilization fund? Then we'll go to you in just a minute. On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's the affirmative. One of the negative motion passes. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to take from the table for a third reading, Papers 23449, the Wildlife Feeding Ordinance, and 24458, Establishing an Electric Vehicle Charging Revolving Fund. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 23449, Wildlife Feeding Ordinance. Approved for first reading September 10th, 2024. Advertised September 26th, 2024. Medford Transcript and Somerville Journal. Eligible for third reading October 15th, 2024. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve for third reading and ordain by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: So find voters any way we can, huh? I can only see the ways that would go. 24458, motion to establish electric vehicle charging revolving fund. I think that was Shane throwing things at the door, please asking us to leave. Or the rats, one or the other. 24458, establishing an electric vehicle charging revolving fund. Approved for first reading September 10th, 2024. Advertised September 26th, 2024. Meant for transcript of the Summerville Journal. Eligible for third reading October 15th, 2024. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve for third reading and ordain. Ms. Clerk, please call the roll. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Ms. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Just say abstain. I have to abstain because Councilor Scarpelli offered me a cut. No, I vote yes. Six in the affirmative, one present. The motion passes. I rented one, I don't think I'm buying one. All right, anything else? Public participation. We'll go to Mr. Cassanetti and Mr. Jones if you want it. All right. Name and address for the record, please, Mr. Cassanetti. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We're here for the squirrels and we're here for the rats. Thank you, Mr. Cassinetti. On the motion of Councilor Callahan to adjourn seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes, meeting is adjourned, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and just to clarify, that's basically just the New Herb Chambers Old Century Bank, the Volkswagen dealership, and the car wash.
[Zac Bears]: All right.
[Zac Bears]: I think the, yes, I think the blue dogleg, I think we went a little. I think on the far end of the Somerville border and the three parcels front that have frontage on Mystic Ave. I think we should make those commercial. If you even look at that far, the last parcel in the city, even on the other side of the fence and the other side of East Albion Street, there's actually another industrial building. on the other side of that, so it's not fronting, those last two lots, the back is not fronting residential property. And then I had a question on that, and I think the one, the little, you know, That big long one that has that little driveway that you could see out to Mystic Ave, that's that big rear Mystic Ave thing. I think that parcel immediately to the northwest is a gas station right now. And it has that Mystic Ave frontage. So I just think that should be commercial. And then those two that abut the mass inspection site should be, you know, basically the SunRail border, that inspection site, those should be commercial as well. And then I just had a question about, I know we generally like to do the zones based on parcels. That rear mystic app parcel is a real funky parcel. And I'm wondering, could we split that parcel into two different zones, or is that really not recommended?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I'm just thinking, like, maybe just take everything where the commercial line
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that would be my recommendation there. I know it would be kind of a little bit different than what we normally do.
[Zac Bears]: You'd be taking basically a giant driveway and a gas station and seeing if you could do something better with it. And I think that's worth trying. So that would be my recommendation is maybe just take a straight line down to those last two parcels and then make all of that commercial that has that Mystic Ave frontage. But then you still have the buffer zone with the park and the residential neighborhood.
[Zac Bears]: Center. It used to be Russo Marine. Oh, you might want to go to that. No one can hear you.
[Zac Bears]: President Burrs. I just will note that on the, and again, if we wanna do a walk or if we wanna just get a little more insight on it, It looks like what might be a Medford Housing Authority maintenance building. Basically the public housing, it looks like there's a large grass buffer and a maintenance building between that lot and the housing units themselves. Obviously, but the way that the lot goes, it angles closer, the closer you get to Bonner Ave, but certainly where the Walnut Street Center is now versus the large parking lot. Basically, that looks like it's abutting a garage and an open grass area. Looks like it's probably at least 100 feet, maybe more, from the housing units.
[Zac Bears]: I think this map is deceptive as to what really what that looks like is four different large buildings. And the Fulbright Street definition is no different than the definition between the next parcel and the next large parcel visually, if you're looking at it. I mean, I could see an argument for mixed use too for that Walnut Street Center lot, but lot size, existing condition, existing use, it feels a lot more similar to the stuff south and east of it than it does to the things that are north of Bonner, to me. So that would be, I'd be inclined to leave it as is.
[Zac Bears]: And if I recall them. life sciences combined proposal would have used a piece of that, like they would have tried to get it straight away from the 16 exit and then wrap it around to where to have basically an intersection where the pink purple line is, if I think I'm remembering that right.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. That was one of my questions, too.
[Zac Bears]: I do have two. I don't know if they're exactly copy editing kind of more things. On the MX3 max height under the incentive zoning, I just think that that should say podium for tower 10 instead of tower eight. Is that a typo?
[Zac Bears]: It's an MX3 max height for incentive zoning.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And then I just have one other question, which was base height versus minimum height. Is this, is that, did we have that in the last proposal?
[Zac Bears]: I think three, a minimum height of three where the base height is four and MX one and MX two, I get that. I just feel like the further, I feel like the four minimum in commercial and certainly in MX three might be a little bit too low. I mean, there'd just be a huge gap if you had a bunch of, if you had a 10 story or a 14 story next to a four story. And I wonder what we think about maybe a higher minimum height for those two districts.
[Zac Bears]: And I see what you're saying about the podium. So that makes sense. Those were my questions.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, just to clarify, was that across all the zones?
[Zac Bears]: Oh, so just the commercial. I get where you're coming from, but I worry about doing that in an MX3. I think we might need to have a little bit of a compromise there.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. And yeah, I mean, I think part of this goes back to the definition of industrial, right? If we're talking like fab space and an MX3, that makes sense to me, but I don't think it should be one story or even a double height, single story structure. So. I mean, my inclination, I think we need to talk about the industrial. go through that industrial list a little bit more and decide what we think makes sense in an MX3 where the minimum height is four stories, and what might make sense in commercial where the minimum height, and maybe the minimum height in commercial is one story, but we can say that it could be double height, or maybe we could say that that ground floor story could have a higher maximum for commercial. I don't love the idea of having a distribution center on Mystic Ave. I get why it was raised as an example, but I just don't think it's highest and best use and where we're trying to go with this. So it's just my two cents.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, I think the way around it is just to say, In commercial, the max ground floor height can be 30 feet. And if we want to drop it down to one floor, then you could have a double height if you wanted. Drop the minimum down to one.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, we could go down to it. I mean, if that's what folks think, if that's the only way we're going to keep industrial uses potentially is to have a minimum height in the commercial district of one story, I think that's fine. And that if we need those stories to be tall, I would just change the ground floor maximum to be whatever that height needs to be.
[Zac Bears]: And if it needs to be 35 feet or 28 feet or whatever you guys think. Something around that.
[Zac Bears]: So, sorry. We need a higher dam, that's what I said.
[Zac Bears]: It's a grim world.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, whatever you... I'm open to whatever you think needs to be the minimum height and the ground floor height to allow the industrial uses. I guess, Sal, if you don't mind me asking from an economic development perspective, Is the thinking just like we want to have some options left for these kinds of uses or you know why it just feels to me, I mean this like certain things I get like some sort of fab vacation site that's close by to a life science tower that makes sense to me, but. Like an Amazon truck distribution site like that doesn't make sense to me, so I guess i'm just wondering what the thought is.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. I think maybe my motion would then be for this, that the steering committee discuss the industrial uses and whatever height and story height requirements are needed to maintain them. And we kind of come back with a coherent just table that includes those items. Cause I think we have to go back and look at the uses anyway, um, between the MX three and the commercial. So, And I think to me, that's the last big outstanding question here of all of this. But, you know, that's just my opinion.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Okay. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: On my radar. keep the papering committee, refer out the comments. Well, I'll just, if you want to take public comment, because I'll just adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just I agree too. Motion to report out the questions and comments to the steering committee, keep the paper in committee and adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we have governance.
[Zac Bears]: Uh, councilor present. Do we know if the charter study committee's recommendations use these? Yes. Okay. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: when everyone else is ready to go to the next slide. I'm good, I have some thoughts, but I can defer.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think just to get a little bit more explicit on that, we'll see what their proposals and ideas are. I would think, it seems to me that there's three and maybe a fourth logical division of this for us, given that I think we're gonna make some changes to the ideas and proposals of the Charter Study Committee. So I could kind of see it going and there could be an added step potentially, but my thinking is that the, and I don't even know if we need its own meeting for this necessarily, but the legislative and executive branch question would be one piece of things. The administrative organization, financial procedures organization would be another. And then the citizen participation and elections piece could be the third. And I think then maybe the incorporation, general provisions, transitional provisions would be another bucket. along with school committee. I'm just wondering if we want to have our own meeting for school committee and invite the school committee members to input, have their input on that. And maybe that could be, maybe it's three meetings. Maybe it's like legislative executive administration or four meetings, legislative executive administration, financial elections, and citizen participation. And maybe we could also do the incorporate the, you know, incorporation and the general provisions as part of that I think that might be, I'm just trying to think of like the scope of work, you know, those seem to be a little bit quicker to get through like I'm sure we'll just kind of take what the Charter Study Committee said for section one is like, you know, we are the city of Medford and this is our mission statement, that kind of thing. It's not as nitty gritty as the details of like, what are the districts maybe going to be for different bodies? Or do we want that to be uniform? You know, powers, of course, are a huge question. Do we want to go down the road of certain things around elections? We already have elections every two years, stuff like that. So I think those are, kind of the bigger buckets of work. So maybe there's five buckets of work, but maybe it's four meetings, maybe we could do a couple in one meeting. And the one that just sticks out to me is what we might want to schedule separately as a school committee, just so that I just don't think we should lump that in with legislative executive branch I think it's a little bit different. And then I think if we're having those four meetings of this committee. My other question would be, do we want to have a meeting before those four meetings where we. receive the mayor's thoughts and the study committee's thoughts before we go into specifically those four meetings on the actual topics. And that might give Councilors, you know, time to review that report. If we want to send any questions back to the mayor or to KP or Tina to legal counsel or to the study committee, um, we could do that and then we could go step by step and say like, here are the four meetings and Councilors could bring their proposals to those four meetings on the different kind of areas of the charter. And that would probably be maybe that first meeting where we just start reviewing and asking questions about the study committee proposals and recommendations and the mayor's report, you know, recommendations and proposals. Maybe that's next month. And then maybe we could do, try to do one or two meetings a month over the next you know, December, January, February, and then hopefully we're getting something out by March. Um, and maybe we could even be putting that on the ballot for November, 2025, um, to go into effect in 2027, something like that would just be my thinking. Um, instead of having, I think if we go longer than that, we're probably waiting until 2026 or 2027 and not having anything going to effect for another five years, which I think we all want to avoid.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and to Councilor Collins, Vice President Collins' point, maybe that's the approach. Maybe that meeting in a month from now or so is if we took down the four or five buckets that I kind of outlined, have Councilors bring their ideas, what they've seen, what they think works for Medford, bring that to the meeting. We could then also have Collins Center or study committee or an example from another community. And that would be a way for us to have that discussion without it being inherently like, I think what we want to avoid here is, um, Pitting different groups that have been moving through this against one another. And like the ideas, I think like there's just going to be different ideas. And now that this process that we are starting our process, which is the formal process and, you know, it can't move forward without a vote of the council can't move forward without the mayor being able to say, All right, councilors think this, council maybe has been able to reach some consensus here. How does that compare to what the mayor's thinking is? How does that compare to what the charter study committee's ideas are? How does that compare to what some other communities do? That would be a good way for us to factor in those different perspectives in a way that is productive and based on like a discussion format rather than it being like competing proposals.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I would move to have the chair through the clerk, send that out to members of the committee for members of the committee to come back with their ideas and comments on each of the different articles and sections. And maybe when you send that out chair, you could lump them into those different groupings. Each of it's basically I think two or three articles, a group. And then when we come back in a month, hopefully we'll have a good discussion on that substance. And then, so I'd move to do that and move to adjourn. All one motion. Oh, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: What you said will give us a picture of their ideas.
[Zac Bears]: Good news about the money too, so we'll get there. Before I start, I want to shout out our Council Vice President, Kit Collins, who is here. All right. Now, I know everyone's just here to see the giraffes. We're going to do three things before then. First, you're going to listen to me for a minute. Hopefully you'll donate if you haven't already. And then we're going to take a photo right around here so that we can show everyone how many people are psyched for this campaign. correct. It's a beautiful evening to be here with all of you, my neighbors. I want to thank the McGordys for hosting us, and I want to thank everyone for everything that they've done so far to build the foundation of this grassroots campaign to invest in Medford. I want to talk a little bit about why we're here. We're here because we see the impact of chronic underfunding around all of us, all around us every day. Kids without the resources they need to thrive. Schools in desperate need of maintenance. Teachers and paras who aren't paid enough. Not enough teachers and paras and staff in the first place. Streets and sidewalks in such bad shape that people are getting hurt and everyone's cars constantly need repairs. A 60-year-old fire headquarters without the proper living quarters and gear storage to keep our firefighters safe. Not only do we see it, the numbers lay it out. We're the fifth lowest in per capita spending of the 97 cities and towns with more than 20,000 people in Massachusetts. 92nd out of 97. Fourth lowest residential property tax rate of that same group, 93rd out of 97. And we're one of only 20 cities out of all 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts that has never even tried to put an override or a debt exclusion on the ballot. Even the people who passed Proposition 2.5 in 1980 thought that these votes would be happening regularly. It wasn't that we should starve government, it was just that people should know what their money's going towards. And we have those items on the ballot today. We're here because it's time to turn the ship around and invest in Medford. Medford residents have been clamoring for the chance to vote to invest in our city, and elected officials have finally delivered by putting questions six, seven, and eight on the ballot on Tuesday, November 5th. We need to spend the next two months pounding the pavement, raising money, and talking to our neighbors about why we need to vote yes to invest in our schools, our streets, and our fire department. Now, this campaign is not going to be easy. Some people may have seen the latest attack line. Stop the scam. Well, let me tell you now, I think calling the hard work of people coming together to invest in our community a scam is just plain weird. Our kids are not a scam. Our teachers and our firefighters are not a scam. Walking or rolling or driving down the street safely is not a scam. Doing the right thing for our city is not a scam. So we're going to push back and we're going to push back hard. We'll be correcting the record and busting these myths every day. And we'll have resources to help you do it at investinmedford.com. There's stuff up there now, go check it out. There's gonna be even more rolling out over the next few weeks. I need each and every one of you to be ambassadors for the truth here in Medford. So sign up, most everyone did at the front, get trained on the facts and make sure you can step in and correct the record when the lies start coming out. But pushing back just isn't enough. We need to fight back in order to win. That means we need to get the facts out to as many people as possible, especially with so many people voting by sending mailers and spending enough money to do this campaign right. Our fundraiser goal was $50,000. I want to thank everyone who's already given and raised over $6,000 just in the first two weeks of this campaign. I especially want to thank Dave McKenna and Nicole Morell, who gave $1,000 each. Thank you. I wrote a check tonight for $1,000 from my campaign funds because winning this campaign and investing in our future is way more important than me getting reelected. So I want to thank everyone who's already donated. Please donate if you haven't and get the word out to your neighbors. I'm hoping we can raise another $6,000 tonight on our path to victory. Thank you so much for letting me share my thoughts with you tonight. I'm just so excited to talk to everybody, talk to our neighbors, and especially celebrate with some homegrown entertainment. I love this city. We have a truly transformative opportunity to build a better future for Medford and I'm glad to be here with you over the next two months to make it happen. Last week I was reminded of some great words from a great campaign. I'm fired up. Are you fired up? I'm ready to go. Are you ready to go? Fired up. Ready to go. Fired up. Ready to go. Let's win this thing. Alright, now we need to take that photo so folks could gather here.
[Zac Bears]: Welcome, welcome. We had over 60 people signed up. There's about 30 of us here now, so really appreciate all the turnout. All right, it's 6.35. We want to be respectful of people's time. Welcome to our Invest in Medford Zoom Community Forum. We will be here tonight until about eight o'clock. And I will be here with School Committee Vice Chair Jenny Graham and School Committee Secretary Paul Rousseau to talk about the Invest in Medford campaign and questions six, seven, and eight on the ballot here in Medford. to invest in our schools, our streets, and a new fire headquarters. The format we're gonna be using today is we are going to be starting off with about 10 to 15 minutes of introduction, short presentation from myself and Jenny and Paul. Then we'll be taking questions for about an hour. There is an app up called Slido. If folks have a difficulty accessing it, let me know, but it should allow you to ask a question right in here. You should also be able to upvote questions that you like. I obviously ask that folks, you know, use the tool responsibly. You know, we had open registration. This is a public meeting. Looks like most everyone here is using their name. But, you know, just want to do that digital security ask of everyone here. And after that, we'll take about 10 to 15 minutes to wrap up. If you feel like a question didn't get asked, or if you wanna follow up with us after, you can send us an email at investinmedford.gmail.com and we will do our best to answer further. And I'm sure all of, many of us are around to talk and answer questions. So with that, I will turn things over to Jenny to introduce herself and then Paul, and then we'll go from there.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Paul and Jenny. So just, we've had a few more people come in, and as I noted before, we're gonna be taking questions right after our presentations and our introductions. There's an app called Slido. I think I just sent an invitation to everybody. You can ask questions using this app and upvote questions, and we will take them as they go. If we see the same question multiple times, we're probably only gonna answer it once, but really encourage folks to start putting forward their questions using the tool so that we can start to answer them. So feel free to start doing that now, and hopefully we'll have a good lineup of questions to be answered. But before that, I just wanna talk a little bit more about how we got here. So as Jenny noted, many of us in the city and many of us who run for office have seen the impact of underfunding and austerity budgets and cost growing up faster than revenues going up and the impact that's had on our city. We see that our streets are not in the condition we want them to be in. We know we have firefighters at the headquarters that is still appetited and far past the end of its useful life. And of course, as Jenny and Paul have noted, we have a school system that really has faced a lot of challenges when it comes to budgets, hiring staff, maintaining programs, maintaining buildings, things that we see every day. And two years ago in 2022, we had the fiscal 23 budget. I'm sure if folks were paying attention at the time, they noted that it was a very contentious budget season. And one of the things that came out of that was really a clear picture for the first time in a long time of the structural deficit in the city budget. the use of one-time funds to pay for ongoing expenses, the soon-to-be-expiring federal funds that even two years ago were on our radar as expiring that we were using to pay to keep our schools and our city moving. And where we are after that budget season, the city council, Councilor Collins and I tried to work with the mayor to see if we could get towards looking at an override to address that structural deficit. We weren't able to reach an agreement, but the following budget season, after a lot of negotiation, we were able to work with the mayor to form, to reach an agreement, to pass a budget ordinance and to form a financial task force. The school committee through its budget process and the council through this budget ordinance have really moved to a more transparent process that's more engaging of the public when we talk about creating the budget and understanding the challenges that we have. And the piece I want to focus on just for a minute is the financial task force. So the task force was announced in June of 2023, and consisting of the mayor, who is also the chair of the school committee, the council president, the council vice president, the school committee vice chair, and the chief of staff, also being supported by the staff in both our city departments finance, et cetera, assessing, and our school finance and operations team. So that task force was announced in June 2023. We started to meet, we put out an initial press release and public statement in September of 2023, talking about how we were going to continue to meet with the goal of coming back to folks before the end of the fiscal year with a proposal that addressed the major financial challenges facing the community. In March of 2023, sorry, 2024, we kind of put out, we announced a framework for that approach. And then in June, we released the detail of that plan, which are the three ballot questions that are now on the ballot for November 5th for the consideration of the voters of the city of Medford. Those ballot questions are question six, what should be a debt exclusion to fund the construction of a new fire headquarters? Question seven, which addresses the school system structural deficit and also the fact that right now we don't have anyone in our DPW who is dedicated to fixing our streets and sidewalks. We would bring back a dedicated street and sidewalk repair crew for the first time in many years. And question eight is about the future of our schools and then really investing and expanding our schools. So the $4 million override to invest significantly into our schools, into our educators, into programming, into making our schools what we want to be, and addressing what Jenny and Paul noted, all of the things that people want to see our schools do. Now, will we be able to do every single one of them with $4 million? No, but it's the first time we're going to be able to have a serious conversation about what transformational investment would look like in our schools. So the total of those items, the debt exclusion pays for a $30 million bond, The estimated cost of that is about $2 million per year. That's question six. Question seven is $3.5 million per year. And question eight is $4 million per year. Those amounts would be part of the property tax levy. They would be paid by residents and businesses, and it would essentially affect the tax rate. The tax rate would be about 60 cents per, 60 cents higher. So it would go up from about 8.5 dollars per $1,000 in assessed value to about $9.1 per $1,000 in assessed value. And the average impact on the average single family home is about $37 per month. So that is the summary of what we're talking about and how we got here. And, you know, the financial task force really does believe that and has stated very clearly that this is a path forward that really does bring us to some financial stability and also the ability to make significant investments in our public schools. So with that, I will end my comments and we can move into the question and answer period. I see we do have a few questions here and I really do hope folks will submit some questions in the Q and A so that we can answer any concerns and provide information to the community about the questions they see around the override. And I'm just putting out an invite once again for folks to submit their questions. The first question is, can you speak to cuts that will likely be made in our schools should the overrides not pass? That's from Melanie. H and we have five likes on that. I will go to Paul or Jenny to talk about that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think just to follow up on that, the specifics of the cuts are part of the budget process, but the answer is 35 to 45 full-time equivalent positions, right? And that's...
[Zac Bears]: then I will clarify to at least 35 to 45 full-time equivalent positions. But what that looks like, I mean, that's, it's a huge cut, you know, that's, it's incredibly large. It's certainly would affect every building, every classroom, every program. Jenny and Paul, I just wanted to follow up on, I just wanted to follow up on one thing, Jenny, first before we go to, there are some, Good questions here that we want to get to, but what was just there was 1 follow up to this question, which was. What was actually cut this year and would anything be able to come back if the override did pass.
[Zac Bears]: I think that's a great transition. And I think we might be able to meet both of your requests, Jenny, for a more hopeful question and talk about some of the things we could be able to do. The question was, could you provide some examples about funds from question eight? So that is the investing more in our schools question, what those could be used to improve our schools.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, guys. I want to move to some of our other top questions here. And folks, please feel free to submit some more questions. We have about 35, 40 minutes before we start to move into some wrapping up. But the two top questions on deck right now, we'll start with one along these lines. Is there a long-term plan to fill these budget gaps, or will we continue to need budget overrides? The answer is there is a long-term plan to increase revenue for the city. The city council has been working on that in partnership with our planning department for several years now. Two years ago, we passed the first recodification of the city zoning in 60 years. And what that does is if we allow new development and new growth, that is the only way outside of an override or a debt exclusion. that the property tax levy can increase above the 2.5%. So the last two years have actually been the best two years for new growth values in the city of Medford in the last 25 years. No matter what other people may say about that, that's just the fact you can go to the State Department of Revenue Division of Local Services website to see that information. And that has helped in the past two years, it hasn't been astronomical Cambridge, Somerville, Boston level, or even Worcester level growth, but it has been an improvement. It has staved off even more cuts. It made possible this year some of what Jenny and Paul were talking about around not having to make the cuts that we had to make. And part of that is also the one-time revenue, the one-time funding from the federal government, of course. But the city council, In partnership with the planning department. We now have a city comprehensive plan for the first time ever. We have a city housing production plan we also have our climate plan and our open space plan. And those are going, all of those are being looped into a zoning update project that the council has been working on with the planning department and our zoning consultant in associates. 11 times on that year in city council in our planning and permitting committee. We have some really, we made some initial adjustments and we have some really, I think, transformative proposals coming up around our Mystic Avenue corridor, our Salem Street corridor, our Medford Square corridor, in terms of the transforming those neighborhoods and allowing significant new growth to see modern walkable mixed use corridors with commercial space and residential space that once the zoning is completed and then once property owners and developers come in to start working on these projects would be transformative for our community in terms of raising revenue. So that is the long-term vision for how we raise revenue beyond going down the other model. I think this is maybe going into the next question a little bit, but the other model is the Winchester, Weston, Arlington, and other place model, which if folks don't know, those are places that do overrides and debt exclusions all the time. Something that may be a surprise to folks is that when Proposition 2 1⁄2 passed in 1980, the proponents of Proposition 2 1⁄2 actually said, that they expected communities to do overrides and debt exclusions regularly, and that the reason for the law was just so that it would be transparent and decided on by the voters. Now, many, 315, I think, of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts have since proposed an overrider or debt exclusion. Many of those communities have passed an overrider or debt exclusion. Medford is one of the few that has never even put one on the table. So we think that with our location close to Boston, the value of our community, the transformative opportunities and corridors that have not seen the economic development focus that they've needed to see. And quite frankly, if we had seen 10, 20, 30 years ago, we might be having a different conversation today. We might be having a conversation more like a Somerville or a Cambridge or even an Everett. That's a way for us to transform the community in a positive way, bring new amenities and benefits to the people who live here and increase the city's tax base significantly in the long run. I think in the medium to short term, you know, the financial task force believes that these overrides and the debt exclusion for the fire station provide significant fiscal space in the next few years for the city to not be in a budget crunch. and maybe even be a bridge entirely to that development and revenue from those new developments. I can't say that with any certainty. Certainly if there's another period, you know, if the tariff that have been proposed by a presidential candidate go into place and we see inflation at 10 or 20% again in the next couple of years, we're gonna be in really big trouble right away. If we see 2% inflation for the next 10 years, it's a different story. But, you know, That's really the thinking here. The one project that I think would fall outside of that is, of course, the new Medford High School. There is no way, and you haven't really seen any community, even Somerville with Assembly Row had to do a debt exclusion for its new high school. That is the one project that I think there would be a further request of the voters to fund. But right now, that is the only thing on the horizon that the current leadership team between the mayor, council, and school committee foresees asking the voters to do. the conditions remain reasonable and we don't have 20% tariffs on everything we import. I don't know if Jenny or Paul you want to add on that long term court plan around the budget gaps at all.
[Zac Bears]: I think there's a follow-up on that, Jenny. There's a question, why do we have to wait so long for the high school debt exclusion? And I may have misspoke. That would be sooner than 5 to 10 years. The MSBA process, the stage we're in now, we would probably find out. Jenny, could you go into that a little bit more?
[Zac Bears]: For the new high school for the new high school. Yeah. All right, Paul, I cut you off and then I will go to Matt.
[Zac Bears]: Another panel, Matt.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just missing those. That's really a really important point. Sometimes I take for granted that people don't know that we don't have such basic things that I forget to mention that we're establishing things for the first time here in Medford that many communities have had for decades, if not longer. Jack, could I speak to the admin is heavy question? Sure, yeah, we'll jump back to that and then we can talk about a couple other questions.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I want to go to the next question that we have a bunch of votes on. which is, do we know what other towns have done to get overrides to pass given that Medford is a laggard compared to similar towns? I will defer to my colleagues in just a moment, but I wish there was a magic formula, because I'd be less stressed out about whether or not this question or these questions are going to pass. I think, to be honest, the first step is the city government needs to have the courage to ask. This is the first time the city government has had the courage to ask the voters. I don't think anyone thinks, oh, let's raise our taxes is a popular thing for anyone to ask anyone else. And I understand like deeply and completely that it's a difficult decision for a lot of people. I think we all understand that. I think we also know that there's a lot of difficult decisions that have been had to be made or continue to be making when it comes to layoffs? And do we pay our staff enough? And do we have this department exist anymore? Things that are really fundamental to the functioning of city government. And, you know, do we have our firefighters have a building where they feel like they're not going to get sick in that building, right? Like, these are really human deep questions, just as much as am I able to afford the tax increase is a really human deep question for a lot of people. And I think for a long time, city government felt like we could keep asking the community to not invest in city government, to do more with less, and found creative or uncreative or short-term, not long-term ways to make that work. And the last five years, especially with the pandemic and with the cost growth, we hit the wall, right? And so now we don't have another choice but to ask. And I think we've been clear that if we ask and we And the answer is no. And there's a lot of very, very hard choices that come after that. And so that's the first step I think to getting an override to pass is that an override is on the ballot. From what other towns have done what we need to do I think Matt really spoke to it and Paul spoke to it and Jenny spoke to it as well right like How do one of the big things that we're talking about the financial task force is how do we make sure that we address the scope of problems that is significant enough that people can see the investment that we're asking them to make. Because if we don't do a big enough thing and we ask people to do this and they don't actually see a change. we're not engendering any more trust than we've been engendering with the lack of progress that the city has been making for a long time. Um, so I'm really encouraged. I think we've done a lot of public education, quite frankly, over the last two to four years around the difficulties and issues that we see in our schools and on our streets and in our city departments, where a lot of people are saying, Hey, you know, maybe I don't want to pay more taxes. Maybe it will be a challenge for me to figure out how to afford to pay more taxes, but also I care about this community. And I know that we need to do these things because. And we can just see it, right? Like it's literally the environment that we live in and the buildings that our kids are in and the teachers who are overworked and the city employees who are overworked, right? Like we see and feel the reality and I think people are ready to make this investment. So I've been really encouraged talking to my neighbors, been really encouraged talking to lots of folks across the city that these things are going to pass. And I think the good thing that if we move forward on these is it sets a foundation for us to show progress, to show improvement, to maybe get the financial systems and softwares in place where we can point to a dashboard instead of a spreadsheet, point to, you know, pull data in a day instead of a week to answer questions more quickly. And my hope is to see that virtuous cycle of investment beginning more investment and city government having the resources that it needs to do its job, meaning that the public trust the city can do its job. So that is my real hope. I feel good right now. I'm going to be working very hard over the next 27 days, talking to people, getting people, raising money to send out the mailers, doing all the different things that we need to do to make sure that we get a yes vote on November 5th. But that's my kind of pitch and spiel around what do we need to do to get an override to pass and why we went this direction. Paul, I see that you're next.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know if anyone can tell that Paul is the secretary of the school committee, because one of the jobs that Paul has to do is sign every bill. So he's pretty familiar with that side of things. I think Jenny raised the same exact point, though, around our class sizes, right? When you ask teachers and paras to have more kids in the room, it gets harder to educate the kids. And if you can have four less kids in a room, that may be the difference between someone staying or someone going somewhere else where the class sizes are smaller. To be honest, there's burnout and turnover in the school. Sure, I'm on the city council and I spend a lot more time on the city side of things. We have a lot of turnover and burnout on the city side too. A lot of great folks come in, build some relationships. They're here for a year, they're here for two years, and then they get offered a job that isn't as many hours, is at a higher pay rate in another city or in the private sector, and they move on. I mean, I think the greatest example of this is our issue hiring a city solicitor. We've raised the pay like two or three times now. hoping that this latest one, which was just a month ago, might actually, or two months ago, might actually lock us in and hopefully we can hire someone. But yeah, people come in, they work hard, they realize that they don't have the, they're working more or doing more jobs that they would have to do. And then, you know, doing two jobs here where they might be able to do one job in another community, they move on. And I think we see that across the board, city and schools. I wanna go to the next question. We'll just want to add in quickly that there was a clarification on the heavy administrator talking about the curriculum and department heads, not more superintendents. So just wanted to note that. Thanks for putting that clarification. On the questions here that are left and we're coming up, you know, we got to probably about 10 or so minutes left if folks want to throw another question into the chat. The next one is, has there been discussions about an owner-occupied property tax exemption like Cambridge and Somerville have, and is that something the city council could pass? So every year we use, we set the tax rate. I won't go into the, take me more than 10 minutes to go into the complexities of exactly how Proposition 2 1⁄2 works, but we set the tax rate every year. And one of the options that is, you know, we technically vote to consider is, could we do an owner-occupied property tax exemption? What that means is that the city would set a certain percentage of the average residential bill. And if you were an owner-occupied unit, you would get that, essentially, your tax bill would go down by that amount. Let's use some round numbers here. Let's say it's $3,000. that would be like a 30% exemption. Let's say it's $3,000. Now, I don't know off the top of my head, it's actually probably pretty close. How that would work is everybody who pays a residential tax bill from, if your owner occupied, regardless of your value, you'd get $3,000 off your bill. So if your house, essentially it creates a breakeven point where, And it's a little more complicated than this, but basically everyone who's owner-occupied would get that cut off. But that money doesn't just go away. The city can't afford to actually have the taxes go down. So that amount that owner-occupants get, that reduction, gets shifted onto people who don't get the owner-occupant exemption. So essentially, you'd be shifting the city, the cost of the property tax on residential properties, off of owner-occupants onto non-owner-occupants. But the other side of that is that that actually changes the tax rate. It essentially means instead of a flat residential tax rate on residential tax bills, you end up with a progressive rate. I don't actually think that's a bad thing, but one of the reasons that previous councils prior to 2022 didn't pass it is it actually would raise taxes on owner occupants in high value homes. So if your home is worth more than the breakeven point, even though you get the exemption, the tax rates going up more than the exemptions, you actually pay more. The point being that it's a complicated conversation. Essentially, if you are in a condo or a small single family and you're living in that, you're an owner occupant, your taxes will probably go down. If you're in an expensive single family or a multifamily, your taxes are probably going up. If you're a certainly large apartment buildings, those there'd be significant increase because the rate would go up. So it's not just this, you know, everyone who gets an if we implemented it tomorrow, that everyone would get this benefit in the same way. It's a complicated conversation. One of the reasons we haven't implemented it is because both the previous city assessor and the current city assessor say it would take them about a year to do the calculations and get everything in order. And they'd probably need one to two more staff people in the assessing office just to process the applications for the owner occupancy exemption. So it's a significant undertaking. A lot of places like Everett's and Somerville's and Cambridge's did this a long time ago when the conversation was a little bit different because of the property values that we see today. But yeah, so we've talked about it a lot. I think I actually know too much about it because I don't know that I explained it particularly well right now. But we've talked about it every year that we've set the tax rate since I've been on the council and I know on prior councils before that. It would be a complicated undertaking, and it isn't the silver bullet that it's presented to be a lot of the time. But do I think it's a bad idea? No, and I'd be willing to move forward on it if folks felt we could make the time and effort and make it a priority personally. Next question is on The when would we expect to see changes to the high school vocational schedule, if we were able to move forward and if the negotiations were able to be concluded.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: And I think, yeah, I think everybody who's everyone I've talked to talks about it gets that it's a heavy lift, but also that getting prepared to make that lift everyone's on that page. All right, we got two more questions left. We're about on time. Well, two and a half, there's a dueling questions for anyone who's seen it at the end and we'll take that one last, but just Rebecca's question is money from the override only required to go to the directed budget for the first year and after that could go anywhere else in the city budget. There's two answers to this question. Proposition two and a half date law requires that in the first year, it goes towards the specific purposes outlined in the question. Those appropriations would be made people would be hired, things would be purchased, contracts would be signed based on those things. In the second year, could the mayor and the school committee and the council then fire everybody that they just hired and go completely in another direction? And I mean, is it legally allowed? Yes, is it something that would be in the realm of possibility? Absolutely not. I think we've all been very, very clear that what the purpose of these overrides are for. And I don't think anyone here, I think we've already been very clear that we don't like the fact that there are layoffs and position cuts and things happening now. I certainly don't think that some massive bait and switch, I don't even know what we would put it into, to be honest. These are the things that we want to do with the money. These are the things that we think are the priority of the city. And yeah, there's a little bit of trust that comes from that, and I acknowledge that, but we've been very clear about what these priorities are. And a lot of it, especially on the school side, is also subject to negotiation, collective bargaining agreements, other laws, and that's what it is. We've been very clear that if these overrides are to pass, they would fund our schools, they would fund our educators, they would fund the people who work in our schools, they would hire a DPW street crew. And what I can say is that if the debt exclusion passes question six, that just have to go to the fire station. That's the law. They can only pay for the bond for the fire station, period. So that's the answer to that question. And can I just add to that?
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Jenny. I want to move to wrap up on The last couple of questions. So we have dueling questions that I think probably none of us here on the panel are the people who should be answering these questions. So I would ask us not to answer them, but I will read them since they have been asked. They are, how could the CC and SC accept a pay raise when you say we're in dire need of money and then ask for an override? And that has been also countered with the question, how can we increase CC and SC pay to increase diversity on those bodies so they represent the city's diverse population? Those are both. viewpoints that people hold. We have a final question here, which is what is the impact of union student leadership, either having had posed or unsure yet on the overhead set exclusion. So that's that the fire union is not supportive. And the teachers union has not yet made a decision. I don't I don't know what the impact of it is. Certainly, I would hope that in the case of the fire union, that they could put aside some of their differences with the mayor. And I think the funding of this project and that we are prioritizing funding a new fire station should be considered independently of the disputes that the mayor and the fire union have had over fire station design and other matters. That's my personal opinion. And I know I've spoken to a lot of our educators about these questions and some support, some oppose, and I'll leave it up to the Medford Teachers Association and other educator unions here in the city to make the decision that they need to make in the time that they need to make it. With that, I wanted to wrap up quickly unless, Paul, Jenny, you have anything else you wanna add before I just put out a few pitches to the folks who are still here.
[Zac Bears]: There are also, thanks, Paul. To that point, there's also two more opportunities coming up for folks. If you thought of a question as we're wrapping up, or you think of one after you leave here tonight, Next Tuesday at 6pm we have a city council committee of the whole meeting in the city council chamber, where we will be talking kind of doing a similar q amp a style format, you'll hear from members of the council and basically answering the questions they feel like they can answer asked by the public. Then we also have an in-person version of this event, an Invest in Medford community forum, Monday, October 21st at 7pm, and that's going to be at the library. So those are two more opportunities that we have for very similar events. As Paul noted, you can reach out to us, investinmedford.gmail.com, or reach out to your elected officials. Our contact information is online as well. Jenny, if you want to say anything, and then I'm just going to put a couple of resources in the chat really quick.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks so much, Jenny. On that note, just want to share again, this was an Invest in Medford community forum. If you're interested, you can go to investinmedford.com where you can find out some more information here. You can see our wonderful photos and of course, but we have the explanations on the three questions, including their full text. We have our impact calculator based on fiscal 24 assessed values from the assessor's office and the division of local services override impact calculator here. If you are, we're compelled tonight to get more involved, you can get involved. You can submit a testimonial about why you support these questions. You can donate to the campaign so that we can get our message out there in these last three and a half, four weeks, get a yard sign. We still have a few left, Not many. And you can sign up to Canvas and talk to your neighbors about these important issues. There's also some endorsements up here. We do have endorsements from 11 of the 14 city elected officials. We have endorsements from three of our four state elected officials. We have a few organizations up here hoping to add some more soon. And this great FAQ page. which really gets into some of the details on what would be the impact if the overrides don't pass? Why do we need the overrides? What are overrides and debt exclusions? How will they impact your taxes? And then just some of the information about how to measure taxes compared to other cities. You know, one thing that I think is just really important to note, our residential tax rate is the 93rd lowest out of the 97 MA cities and towns with population over 20,000. And there's just a lot more here on the website. So if you are looking for more information, looking to share, looking to join our campaign, you can go to investinmedford.com. And we really hope that folks here will strongly consider and commit to vote yes on questions six, seven, and eight on Tuesday, November 5th. Mail voting has already started. Early voting starts Saturday, October 19th. And election day, if you're voting at your polling location, if you haven't made your choice by Tuesday, November 5th, polling locations will be open 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on November 5th. So we really, really hope that everyone here will vote. And I think it's fair to say that this panel hopes that folks will vote yes. Thanks everybody for a wonderful evening. Really appreciate everyone being here and hope to see you over the next few weeks as we lead up to election day.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council, Committee of the Whole. October 2nd, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. Meeting is called to order. Since we're in hybrid mode, we will have all roll call votes. 24473 presented by Mayor Brianna Locurn, Capital Stabilization Fund appropriation request. And we have a revised letter from today. Dear President Bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves the following appropriations from the Capital Stabilization Fund. Replacement of the water heater at Brooks Elementary School, $267,000. Roadway patching in the amount of $112,728. replacement of light poles in city parking lots in the amount of $105,000. City Hall elevator repair unforeseen costs and upgrades of electrical and fire alarm systems needed for code compliance, 75,000. Repairs at Brooks Estate, use of funds must comply with city procurement policies and procedures and state procurement law in the amount of 55,000. As your honorable body knows, the capital stabilization fund currently has a balance of $4,538,465 given the appropriations made on September 17th, 2024. If all of the above are approved, the capital stabilization fund would have $3,923,737 that remains. Any appropriation from the stabilization account requires a two-thirds majority vote of the City Council. At the City Council's Committee of the Whole meeting on Wednesday, October 2nd, Assistant Superintendent Peter Cushing will be available for questions on the water heater replacement. City Engineer Owen Wartella will be here for the roadway and patching project. Superintendent of Ours, Steven Randazzo on the light poles and Facilities Director Paul Riggi on the elevator project. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. And we will not be talking about the engine three pump right now. That's looking like they're going to need to reassess the project and the cost for that. So that is not on the table right now. given where we're at, just wanted to see if anyone had any questions before we move into discussion of individual items. I see Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: I don't see the chief of staff or the mayor present, but Director Riggi is gonna go check in that office right now and see if they can pop over.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any other questions or comments by members of the Council before we move into the specific items? Seeing none, while we wait for Director Riggi to return, we'll start. We'll go in order. We'll start with the water heater at the Brooks School. We'll go to Assistant Superintendent Cushing, if you could give us a little information on the project and see if we have any questions from members of the council.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any questions for Superintendent Cushing? Seeing none, I have one. Oh, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. I have two questions. One was, What did the, you know, we're looking at 267,000 here for this system. What did the all electric system, what were the estimates coming in for that?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And it sounds like we were able to make the initial water heaters last 20 years or so.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. Council Desiro.
[Zac Bears]: Before we go to bid, we have to authorize funding. So the authorization is based on the estimate.
[Zac Bears]: I think if the bid comes in under the appropriated amount, then the balance reverts to the fund. This is the most it could cost. Well, this is the, I mean, unless the bids come in higher. Right. So this is what I think the best estimate for authorization and then the bidding process will determine the final cost. Is that correct?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: From what Mr. Cushing said, the hot water heaters and all the other new buildings that early 2000s buildings have already been replaced. But the HVAC systems and Mr. Director, if you want to come up and say anything about the general condition. I know we've talked a lot about the middle schools, HVAC being a significant investment that's needed.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further questions on this item? We'll go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I think we'll see where we are at the end of the presentations and hopefully we can refer items out to the regular meeting. Seeing no further questions, Mr. Superintendent, thank you for answering them. We'll move to the next item.
[Zac Bears]: Next item is roadway patching in the amount of $112,728. And that I believe is our city engineer.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions for City Engineer? Councilor Kelly?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any other questions on the roadway patching? Seeing none, I have one. When we say that the square yard cost went up $10 a square yard, what is that from and what is that to?
[Zac Bears]: All right Do you have any understanding as to why that's happening or I think asphalt is expensive I
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I just didn't know if there was any specific supply chain stuff that you might know about that we might not know about. Um, but I will just note that, uh, 10, you know, the percentage change there is huge. It's almost 25% higher than we thought. And 25 is a lot more than 2.5. All right, any other questions regarding roadway patching? Seeing none, I will go to the next item. Mr. Randazzo, replacement of light poles in the city parking lots in the amount of $105,000. What do we got, Steve?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Thank you. We'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Rendazzo? I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I had one question just when the poll came down, what was the, did it hit anything? What was the impact of it?
[Zac Bears]: All right, and was it on a sidewalk, parking lot, roadway?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, all right. And I know you weren't around, did it happen late at night or?
[Zac Bears]: You don't know, yeah, it's okay. Just obviously wanna not have light poles falling on cars or people or anything else, so.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. Seeing no further questions, we'll move to our next item, which is the elevator repair unforeseen costs. We'll go to Director Riggi.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Any questions from members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Any other questions for Director Riggi on the elevator?
[Zac Bears]: When you have some info, if you could send us an email, we'll get it out. Great, thank you. All right, next item we have is the, Of course, I lost my screen here. Is it Brooks Estate? Brooks Estate, great. I'm familiar with this project. We do have our Brooks Estate president, Carly Nessen here. Welcome, Carly. I can go quickly through just to say that this is a request for $55,000. for repairs at the Brooks Estate. The breakdown of that, I'm sure Carly can go into more details, but there are some roof repairs and snow repairs and insulation and radiator work that need to happen as well as drywall repairs, walls and ceilings in the caretaker spaces and floors in the caretaker spaces as well as some pest control in the attic. And that is important because we are seeking new caretakers at the estate to oversee and watch and keep safe the city property that is the Brooks Estate and the Shepherd Brooks Manor. So with that, I will go to Carly Nessen, president of the Medford Brooks Estate Land Trust.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any questions for President Nesson? Councilor Scarpelli, I see a hand raised.
[Zac Bears]: Got it, I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: I will go to Carly on active projects. I think I'll have to unmute you. This is preventative maintenance, so it doesn't fall under CPA.
[Zac Bears]: Maintenance and emergency repairs.
[Zac Bears]: Great, any other questions regarding the Brooks Estate item, the repairs at the Brooks Estate? Seeing none, we do have the Chief of Staff, who is, I'm sure, working diligently on another thing right now, and if you need a minute, I can give you a minute, but Councilor Scarpelli did have a question, I think, potentially related to the fire item that came off the agenda. Councilor Scarpelli, if you wanna restate the question.
[Zac Bears]: you. Thank you. Thank you. Chief Stephanie's area.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of council, I'm going to refer the paper with the items to the regular meeting, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? We have a raised hand for participation. Give me one second here. We'll go to Gaston Fiore. Or Councilor Scarpelli, is that, do you want to go?
[Zac Bears]: I'll go to vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to public participation. Gaston Fiore. I will ask you to unmute and you'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: We had a motion on the floor.
[Zac Bears]: Refer out of committee to the regular meeting. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. We have a little more discussion. Chief of staff Nazarian.
[Zac Bears]: All right. On the motion of Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: We're in the middle.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 70 affirmative, none negative motion passes. Any further discussion? We could talk about average new growth plus two and a half percent being around 3.25 to which is about 20% of 25%, but no one wants to hear me talk about percents. We just don't have enough money to run the city. On the motion adjourned by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Leming. Ms. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: All right, Councilor Tseng. Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent, motion passes, meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Council, October 1st, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. Records. The records of the meeting of September 17th, 2024 were passed to Councilor Leming. Councilor Leming, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion approved by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes. Reports of committees 24-036 and 24-461 offered by Councilor Lazzaro, Public Health and Community Safety Committee, September 17th, 2024. Report to follow. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Are there any further comment or discussion? On the motion to approve Councilors are seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. 24-354 and 24-370 offered by Councilor Leming. Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, September 24th, 2024. Report to follow. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Is there a motion to approve?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have any affirmative, none, and negative. The motion passes. 24033 offered by Vice President Collins. Planning and Permitting Committee, September 25th, 2024. Report to follow. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins approved, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have any affirmative, none negative motion passes. Hearings request for 24457 request for amendment to previously approved grant location National Grid. Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to table Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Present Affairs. Yes. Having the affirmative, none the negative, that is tabled. Petitions, presentations, and similar papers. 24464, a petition for a common victualized license, Nazar Market. Do we have Nazar Market present in person or on Zoom? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Um, what do we want to do about that? Mr. Clerk, do we want to try to find him? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: All right. On the motion to table by Councilor Callahan, we can
[Zac Bears]: Great. Right now we are taking you up. Sorry about that. You're good. Welcome before us. I will go to councilor Scarpelli of licensing and permitting and science subcommittee.
[Zac Bears]: 30 or 40 minutes. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah. If you can get him on the phone, Councilor, he misses the meeting.
[Zac Bears]: So great. Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: So this is open if we just want a motion to, we could recess or we could table and then take it back up, whatever folks would prefer.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to table, Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. We are temporarily tabling this. Motions, orders, and resolutions. 24474 offered by Councilor Lazzaro, resolution to discuss Tufts University's decision to disinvest from the Neighborhood Fellows Program, be it resolved, whereas Tufts University benefits from many services offered by the City of Medford, the City of Somerville, and other surrounding cities, while participating in the pilot Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program, with the understanding that the community benefits from educational programs offered by Tufts University, be it resolved that the City Council discuss the potential negative impact of the disinvestment in the Neighborhood Fellows Program at Tufts University. Council Lizara.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. We'll go to members of the council first. Anyone from the council have any comments on this paper? I do. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to know vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the council? I do have a question or two for Rocco that I wasn't going to bring up, but then he brought him up, so I'm going to ask him. Would anyone mind making an amendment to the paper to the effect of my questions? And Councilor Lazzaro, would you mind communicating them to him since he sent you an email?
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I would just request that we ask for more details on how often the pilot agreement is negotiated. He mentioned a specific amount of property taxes that are paid to the city. I would like to know what entity is paying those. Is it Tufts University? Is it Walnut Hill Properties, their private development arm, or is it some other entity? And I would like to know how they estimate the value of their community benefits and whether the community that they say they're benefiting is involved in determining the value of those benefits or what those benefits actually are.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I appreciate that Councilor Lazzaro, since I can't make amendments from the chair. All right. With that, I will go to public participation. If you would like to speak on this item in public participation and you're in the room, you can stand at the podium. If you would like to discuss this item and you're on Zoom, please raise your hand on Zoom, and we will alternate between Zoom and in-person comment. Each person who would like to comment will have three minutes, so please raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium in person. All right, we'll go to the podium first. Please give your name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and thank you for being here. I'm going to go to Chelli on Zoom. Name and address for the record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Um, yeah, if I tell you, if you could share the comments and then I can go to Joe, is that okay? That's, I just, that's what the rules say.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chelly. I'm going to go to Joe. Joe, I'm going to unmute you. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Joe. Any further comments by members of the council? Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Any objections to the amendment? No, just as long as you accept it as the main sponsor. Great. I did have a chance very quickly to look at the community benefits document. Over half of the value claimed by Tufts is financial aid. It's not divided by Medford and Somerville. It's not clear how much of that 1.43 million is coming from Walnut Hill, which is a private development arm of the university and not Tufts University itself. So I'm hoping to get a little bit more clarity from Mr. DeRico in response to our questions. And what's the motion here on the paper at large? Would you like to refer it to a committee or? As amended.
[Zac Bears]: All right. On the motion to receive and place on file as amended by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I move that the negative motion passes. Do we want to take back up Nazar Market?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to take, so motion of Councilor Tseng to take paper 24464 off the table, seconded by... Second. Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. So the permanent motion passes 24464 petition for a common victor's license and is our market. Now we'll go to Councilor Scarpelli licensing permitting signs. Thank you. It's Councilor Scarpelli for meeting with our petitioner and getting the information.
[Zac Bears]: Can we just have your name and your address for our records, please?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. All right. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve the convictioner's license seconded by Councilor Callahan, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Be it resolved that the Medford City Council hold a question and answer session with Medford senior citizens to discuss the definitions and terminology regarding the proposed Proposition 2 1⁄2 overrides and the proposed debt exclusion measure. Councilor Scarpello.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Just a couple of things. I am happy to schedule, without the permission of the mayor, a meeting October 15th. It's a little bit so next week is the week after because that's we have available but before next regular meeting. October 15th. We go as long as we need to go we'll do it as a committee of the whole it will be televised publicized and we can have the topic the questions and answers from the public regarding the proposition 2 and a half.
[Zac Bears]: If we could incorporate that as an amendment to the paper, um, There are a lot of laws around what cities can and can't do in terms of advocacy. And I know that I think the city is trying to protect all of its employees from being accused of violating those laws. There is also on the city website, medfordma.org, something more than just the text of the override questions. There's an explainer from the city that has been reviewed by council so as to not sway into the legal questions around this, but if folks look at that, there's a button right on the front page of the city website that includes a municipal explanation. I got you, Anna, and I have you, has an explanation of the overrides from municipal perspective. I do just want to clarify a couple of things regarding the city assessor. The data that is being used regarding calculators, both from the DLS and online is the fiscal 24, the current year tax data, current year tax assessments. I personally have been in multiple meetings with the assessor for over a year regarding the process of this, so take that for what you will. I've been in those rooms, I've had those conversations. And in terms of assessments, The tax year is always based, the assessments for the tax year are always based on the prior year. So when we're talking about 2025, they only have complete sales data from 2023. That's what's used to adjust the assessment. That's the same every year. That's always the process. And it always is. As we all know, the tax rate setting process happens in December after those valuations are calculated. I have been in communication with the assessor. All of the data is data from the assessor's database or from the Division of Local Services of the State Department of Revenue. So that is what is out there. The tax rate process will essentially follow its normal course where we will have meetings in November and December regarding the tax rate. and we will either be setting the tax rate based on a yes vote or a no vote. And that's how that will happen. So I just wanted to say that I have met with the assessor multiple times in groups and one-on-one about this process, and he is informed and was informed and was a part of that.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Yeah. I mean, I, I met with him in person, so there wouldn't be anything on paper, but yeah, meetings, meetings tend to happen by talking to people. So I will go first to vice president Collins, and then we'll go to councilor Zara and councilor Callahan, vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will go to Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I would suggest that you reach out to them and have them go through their own process. They would have to do their own process.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I would contact them yourself and see if they can set something up through their own process.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng. I just don't want to add another meeting for them without asking.
[Zac Bears]: All right, any further comments from members of the council? So what I have here is amending the paper to include residents and parents, to request that the council on aging be able to do outreach to senior citizens, to invite them to the meeting, to request community liaisons be able to translate the information that the city has made available, the questions and the information, the city municipal information sheet reviewed by legal, and that this is all to refer to committee of the whole, and I will schedule that for October 15th. Does that sound right? Anything I missed? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, council and aging, community liaisons, and PTOs, got it. Okay. All right, and that was by Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by everyone, and seconded by Vice President Collins. We'll go to public participation, please raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium in person. Please form a line behind Gaston, and we'll start with Gaston. Gaston, you'll have three minutes, or we'll go to Paulette, right? Yes, we'll go to Paulette. You'll have three minutes, then we'll go to Zoom, then we'll come back to the room.
[Zac Bears]: This will be a Tuesday meeting, 6 p.m. in this room and on Zoom and on YouTube.
[Zac Bears]: Tuesday, October 15th.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to zoom. We'll go to Jennifer on zoom, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I will note there are also a number of quite a few private events that have happened or will be happening as well to talk to members of the public. So I won't get into that any more than I am here, but I do suggest people be on the lookout for those. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to no one on Zoom. So we'll go to the podium, name and address of the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I would just to that point, encourage anyone listening to look at the exemptions available for property taxes, the deferral program, et cetera. This council has made it a very important point to maximize to the utmost what the state will allow us to do for those programs. We have done that. And we have also tied our programs to go up whenever the state increases the amount. So in the past, they didn't go up for a long time. There were huge gaps between us and other communities. We have corrected that and they will go up automatically as the state increases. the conditions for those programs. Go to Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Mr. Castagnetti, I believe. Mr. Castagnetti, I'm asking you to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. I'll restart your time.
[Zac Bears]: Tuesday, October 15th.
[Zac Bears]: That is for a $30 million bond for a new fire headquarters.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, question six, it's a $2 per year cost to finance the payment of bonds for a new fire headquarters. The bond, the total.
[Zac Bears]: That is a debt exclusion.
[Zac Bears]: Well, the way that a debt exclusion works is that you have it for the amount of the bond for the construction of the project, and that is paid over many years. The bond amount is estimated to be about $30 million, and the estimate of the annual impact is about $2 million.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, that is an override.
[Zac Bears]: That would be $3.5 million per year.
[Zac Bears]: Question number eight is also an override, and that amount is $4 million per year.
[Zac Bears]: There's no provision in proposition two and a half law to exempt seniors beyond the exemptions generally allowed for the property tax, which the city already.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. We'll go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Given the format of the event and what's been discussed by Councilor Scarpelli, I think what we can do is we can prioritize A, and I'm sure everyone in the room would be happy to do so, get seniors seated in the front of the room, take their questions first. And when it comes to the bickering and yelling, I can only do so much, but I will encourage everyone at the beginning of the meeting to keep it civil. I think given the format of the event, we're gonna have to have slightly different rules. I think keep questions a little bit shorter. I would request also the answers from my fellow Councilors be kept as brief as possible. and we can try to get through everybody in a timely manner. But I will now that I'm aware of the request and the format, we'll take all of those factors into consideration and make sure that we hear from our seniors in a respectful and prompt manner. Um, given the format that we're talking about with a committee of the whole, we can't, uh, do we can't, the council can't host a public meeting and say only certain people can come. Um, I do think it is also a way around some of these questions that Councilor Scarpelli noted around the legal questions. He's asked if we could have a private forum at the senior center. It seems like that'll take some time. I think this is a way to expedite the process and I think not a private Not necessarily private, but it's an open forum. Would it be a, not a private, but not a council meeting?
[Zac Bears]: Right, so I think this is the way within our authority we're able to accelerate this. I'm gonna take all those factors into account. I will plan for as best as I can to incorporate those factors. Thank you. Just one second, I'm gonna go to Zoom. We'll go to Paul on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Paul, I've asked you to unmute. All right. I will go back to the podium. We'll see if we can get back to Paul in a minute.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know what the hybrid space is.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, yes. I mean, I personally try to mention it every time we talk about taxes. We mentioned it during the tax rate meeting. We can keep mentioning it. It is also, and I know you said you didn't have the computer, but it is available on the assessor's office website. And I will, not necessarily for you, but for anyone watching, The library is a great resource. If you don't have a computer to access that information, it's open until 9 p.m. most weekdays. And there's a ton of computers thanks to that great project that for folks who may not otherwise be able to get that information. So I just want to note that for anyone maybe watching on.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Any further comments by members of the public? I'm going to try Mr. Garrity one more time. Paul? I'm going to request to unmute you, and if you could click the button and give us your name and address for the record. Paul, a pop-up should have just come on your computer asking you to unmute. All right, do we have any other comments from members of the public or from members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Which calculation?
[Zac Bears]: the calculation being that is both on the city website and that that is referenced by private group that is from the division of local services.
[Zac Bears]: Well in the assessor. So the way it works is if you take the the 7.5 million, and then you put the 2 million at that exclusion, that takes you to 9.5. You go to the DLS website, which has the override calculator, and that will give you the override amount. And then that is taken, the information for the address calculator is taken directly from the assessor's database, multiplied by the DLS calculator, and that's how you calculate the amount.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, I think we're getting a bit into the specifics or minutiae of the issue.
[Zac Bears]: That's the data is from the assessor. I've spoken with the assessor multiple times about the data. They did not do the multiplication, but the data is from them. So it's their tax rate. their assessed values. If there's an individual case where there's an error in the assessed value in the assessor's database, I could work with you and the assessor to correct that error. But all of the data is from our tax rates from the State Division of Local Services and from the assessor's database. But not the update assessments, correct? Right. Well, they're based on the assessments we have now, current year. Right.
[Zac Bears]: Right. I did speak with the assessor a couple of weeks ago, and he actually expects that next year's bills will increase. The normal increase will happen no matter what in assessments, not to be as bad as prior years. looking forward to those meetings on the tax rate and the assessed values. Any further questions or comments? Go to the podium one more time.
[Zac Bears]: No, that includes the interest, the estimated annual. No, it's a $30 million bond.
[Zac Bears]: I didn't say over a 15 year period.
[Zac Bears]: I didn't say it was over a 15 year period. It's until the bonds paid off. The $2 million includes debt service costs, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: It is the estimated debt service for a $30 million bond.
[Zac Bears]: It's probably actually going to be slightly lower because the tax rate's going to go down because the values are going to go up.
[Zac Bears]: It will most likely actually be a little lower, you're correct.
[Zac Bears]: No, that's what's happening. So you're correct, what happens with how Proposition 2.5 works is The total levy is increased by the limit amount. That's the numerator of our equation. Yep. The denominator of our equation is the total assessable assess taxable value. Sorry, total assessed value of taxable property. Right. The total that denominator total that's in fiscal 25, if no override were to pass. So the override impact is actually likely to be less than it is on the calculator because of that impact, because the values are going up so much faster, but you're also correct. That's just the calculation for the whole city. Then you get the tax rate. The tax rate is then multiplied by your assessed value. And so yes, there's disparate impact. on different properties. The single family class, for example, has been going up in value much faster than other classes of property. Proposition two and a half is an incredibly complicated, convoluted law that is not a good way to set tax policy. It's very difficult for people to understand it. And it places these artificial limits that make it really are not grounded in any sort of economic science. They were just a fun number that people decided to pick in 1980 to get a law passed. So I completely agree with you. It's a convoluted, complicated law.
[Zac Bears]: So that's one opinion on well, that's my personal opinion.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know what Well, I think we can both agree that there's complications in the calculation.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes. But in your to answer your question specifically the tax rate in fiscal 25 is likely to be lower than the fiscal 24 rate.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And that's how it is every year. Right. Right. So, yep, it's pretty good estimate. Thank you. Any further questions on Zoom? I'm going to go to Marie Izzo.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We can invite them. I don't want to schedule a meeting for them.
[Zac Bears]: I will invite them to attend.
[Zac Bears]: We'll try, oh, hands down. Any further comment by members in the room? Seeing none, I'll go back to Mr. Castagnetti. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comment seeing none on the motion of councilor Scarpelli second by vice president Collins to refer This paper as amended to committee of the whole to amend the paper to include inviting residents and parents and to request that the Council on Aging, PTOs and community liaisons conduct outreach and that community liaisons are able to translate the city produced materials regarding the override and debt exclusion questions. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Cohen. She said she votes yes. I think we gotta have a verbal.
[Zac Bears]: So the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes as amended. I actually need Councilor Scrupley for you to take the chair for this one too. Sorry. It's for my paper on the MCAS.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll just, uh, would you like me to, I can do it if you, unless you want to do it.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you. Um, just, uh, the text is, uh, whereas access to high quality publicly funded education is a guaranteed right. written into the Massachusetts Constitution, and whereas the goal of public education is to teach students essential foundational skills such as reading, writing, and arithmetic, and to develop critical thinkers, engaged citizens, and lifelong learners. And whereas the bedrock of the Commonwealth's world-class public education system is strong, statewide standards that are uniform throughout our public schools, and whereas the MCAS is significantly limited in its ability to accurately and effectively measure whether students are meeting the Commonwealth standards and developing the skills they need to thrive after high school, and whereas the most effective measures of whether students are meeting our strong statewide standards in developing the skills they need to succeed in college, the workforce, and beyond, Our educator-led assessments such as projects, papers, tests, and group activities that are conducted throughout the school year. And whereas the punitive use of MCAS as a high school graduation requirement has restricted curriculum and shifted the focus of education in our public schools towards meeting a test score instead of fostering an environment of creativity, critical thinking, and real teaching and learning that helps students realize their full potential. And whereas pediatricians, researchers, and school Councilors have warned of the severe impact of high-stakes testing like the MCAS graduation requirement on students' mental health and well-being. and whereas standardized test requirements notoriously stack the deck against students of color, ESL students, and students with learning disabilities, and whereas using MCAS testing as a high school graduation requirement has prevented or delayed thousands of students from earning a diploma, thereby interrupting or derailing education or career plans with especially harmful impacts on students of color, low-income students, students with disabilities, and students for whom English is their second language. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we support question two, replacing the MCAS graduation requirement on the November 5th general election ballot.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I'm sure you being in the schools, being a teacher, you've seen the impact. I was one of the early classes that had to pass the MCAS to graduate high school. A lot of these requirements, you know, ours came into place from the Education Reform Act in the early 90s, but this was really blasted nationwide by the education reform movement under No Child Left Behind. At its peak, 35 states required a high-stakes standardized test to pass and graduate high school. You had to pass it. That's down to eight states. So it used to be 35, we're down to eight. We're one of the only eight who are left. And the reason is it doesn't work. It doesn't actually measure what we're trying to measure. It doesn't actually help anyone get anywhere. And it harms, particularly targeted harms at groups of students who maybe they passed all their classes, maybe they did all their projects, maybe they passed all their tests, maybe they have all their grades that they need to have, but they struggle with the test. They don't get a high school diploma, even though they passed all their classes and their teachers think they should get one. And I think You know, at the core, that's who we're trying to protect here. That's the most focused group that's gonna benefit from this, but I think it benefits everyone in the schools too. Not to have their classmates worried about anxiety about passing the test, not to have teachers feeling like they have to teach to the test, not to have students worried that even if they do everything right, there might be this one little thing that doesn't go the way they want it to go and they can't get their degree or their diploma. So, you know, for a lot of people, the MCAS is just some boring days. For some kids, it's the worst five days of their lives. I don't think for any teacher, any student, it's a good activity that they feel at the end of it benefited their education. And that's why I think you shouldn't have the high stakes requirement on it. If it was up to me, maybe you'd go a different direction altogether. This question doesn't get rid of the test. You can, the assessment is still there so that we can punish teachers and districts if kids don't do great on it. So it doesn't go as far as I'd like it to go, being someone who's been in our schools and been an advocate for our schools and worked with our teachers, not just in Medford, but around the Commonwealth. So it doesn't go as far as I'd like to go, but it does hit that most difficult part of the MCAS, which is the high stakes requirement that really hurts specific groups of students and creates that anxiety and teach the test mentality. So I think it's great that it's on the ballot and I really hope it passes and I hope tonight we can endorse it. And our school committee endorsed it last week. Yes. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I think to at least one of Gaston's points, I just wanted to add in the, I think that the passage of this, a yes vote on this, which I'm hoping we'll see on November 5th, will really encourage the state legislature to take more seriously the MCEIA or IEA, I can't remember, it's the mass commission on alternative, it's basically the alternative educational assessment, innovative educational assessment, I think it is MCEIA. Yeah, they're looking at that portfolio requirement, bringing that back so that we can have a statewide requirement that's not a high stakes standardized test. And I really hope that that innovation will go in there. And I also just want to direct some folks, similar to Councilor Scarpelli's experience, there's a Boston Globe article yesterday, I think, about Deb McCarthy. Deb is someone I count as a close friend. We organized together for many years. She was a teacher in Hall forever, and she started off early on in MCAS, and you can read this in the story. She was the MCAS data czar for her school. She thought it was going to be doing these great things, helping get that data out, helping to provide more knowledge to to teachers to help them teach better. She did that for a few years, then she started to see the impacts to the point where a few years ago she became what she called, and some other teachers in the district, conscientious objectors. They refused to proctor the MCAS exam. And they were sitting with the kids who had been opted out of the MCAS exam as well and working with them on those days. She's now vice president of the MTA statewide, a huge leader on this issue. But that profile, I think, is really a great example of a teacher who was teaching before MCAS started, knows what it was like, thought MCAS was going to be this good thing, really gave it a chance, saw the negative impacts, and then has been organizing to try to bring us to a different standard for a really long time. And I think that is just exactly the story people need to hear to get behind this question, the experience of this in our schools, what our teachers have seen. what the students have been impacted. So I refer people to take a look at that Deb McCarthy profile in the Boston Globe sometime in the last couple of days.
[Zac Bears]: Now I know I don't want to let it go though. It's just you give that to Dina. You're done for Georgia. You get that to Dina. All right, public participation. Is there anyone who'd like to speak about anything we haven't talked about yet? All right, seeing no hands on Zoom, no one in the chamber. Any unfinished business? Seeing none, is there a motion on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to adjourn by Councilor Loehrig, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Hi there, sorry about that. I am currently sitting at the intersection of Main Street and South Street. So subject matter expert at the moment. I just wanted to note a thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Thank you to the Bike Commission and to Emily O'Brien for your work on this. And thank you to Todd for being our liaison with MassDOT. But I also just wanted to note I think it's essential that we get this right. Medford wasn't built for the level of car volume that we have now. And just because we pasted an overpass of Route 16 and the highway through it doesn't mean that the rest of our streets can actually handle the car volume that we have today. And that's why it's essential that we move in the direction that we're moving to make Medford more accessible for all, not just people with cars. I'm one who uses my car all the time, but I would use other modes of transportation if I felt like I could get where I was going in a reasonable amount of time. The Craddock Bridge is the only crossing of the Mystic River for about a mile or more on either side of the east or west. And we know that it was deeply impacted by the massive volumes of car traffic that have been throughput through that bridge and through the intersections that we're talking about. by Interstate 93 and by the overbuilt Route 16 overpass. And I think it's essential that we get this signalization and rebuild of Main and Mystic right, because what we're talking about in Medford Square and what we're talking about on Mystic Ave is returning to a people-centered era, not a car-centered era. All of the spots on Mystic Ave just south of the bridge and just south of the 16 overpass used to be a vibrant walkable neighborhood. Medford Square used to be a vibrant walkable neighborhood. The car supremacy and the building of the highway destroyed so much of the community that was built there. And now that we're trying to restore it, this isn't the essential link. to making it work. So I appreciate the bike commission's work. I appreciate everyone's conversation here in this meeting. I also think putting that layer of what do we want our community to look like and how do we want to make sure that it's safe for everyone to have community and link together in our squares is an important part of the conversation, too. I don't think the 25% design hit that mark, but I'm hopeful that upcoming designs will. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I will share now. It's wired, so you don't lose Wi-Fi ever if you're plugged in there. It may be a solution for if we have Wi-Fi issues. Looks like we're fine now, but it was just a note if you wanted to present.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. To Councilor Callaghan's point, I think maybe the easiest way to move in that direction would be to do mixed use one on those parcels that are kind of on that leg of the, I'm a pro option B, I'm pro incentive zoning. That would be what I would move for. But I think that's a well taken point. And maybe that leg could be like MX one, and maybe it's even MX one with no incentive zoning. So it stays at four stories. Either way on that. But I think that might make sense for like, just those parcels that are almost southwest of the park line, if that makes sense on the map, kind of that dog that comes out of that district. So that's just my suggestion there. I think on the lot coverage question, I think the stormwater and all that and the green score is great, but I also just think the open space minimum. Minimums are really good too. I think we'll, you know, even with increased building size, we're going to see increased green space because right now, even at 50% lot coverage, it's 100% impermeable. So that's kind of where I think we'll get a benefit there. And then maybe even additional benefit from incentive and green score. I had a question about the maximum setbacks, especially in the mixed-use two and mixed-use three, and even the mixed-use one. It just seems like a lot to allow a 20-foot setback in addition to when we're already gonna have to have an 18-foot street setback. And I'm just wondering if that might make it look disjointed or affect the frontage that we're trying to create. So I'm wondering what your thought was on that. It's like the three slash 20. The minimum makes sense, the maximum seems really big.
[Zac Bears]: And I guess my question with that being, If we just write that in as the setback, could they just do whatever they want, put a parking lot in there?
[Zac Bears]: And we're gonna write that into the performance standards for the district? Yeah. Okay, great, because that's just my concern with the 20 foot. And I know we're gonna talk about the other front setback, street setback thing later, so I won't go into that. I just also think, I mean, and maybe Danielle could speak to this a little bit, the proposed additional adding in the parcels, it looks like we've agreed, and I think we may have voted on including the stuff between South and Thomas Street in the MX1 district, so that's why that's in the map, so that's good, that's like on slide four, it's the black shaded parcels, so that's, we've already agreed we wanna include that. dotted line areas. Danielle, it sounded like you had gone out a little bit in the neighborhood. Were you able to go out in any of those parts of the neighborhood? Okay. My inclination would be to say, just leave the ones with mystic affrontage in and at least for now, it might just simplify our process if we were to say for now, let's just leave the Mystic Ave frontage things in and we can come back when we're doing the neighborhood zoning and decide if we want to put some sort of like step up in those dashed areas. Just because it's, you know, those are the places where it's most abrupt. And I think that's why we've, we're like, do we do it? Do we not do it? I could see an argument for the like Hancock Street, Crescent Street, Mystic Ave block, maybe more than the next block on Hancock Street. And then the Bonner Ave one is, the Bonner and Alexander one is just tough, right? It's what, eight or nine or 10 like residential houses that are just right there, whereas on the rest of the corridor, that was not allowed to be built. That would be my suggestion for those. I think we could talk about it later. I'd be willing to make it in the form of a motion to just include the yellow highlighted parcels in this first round and we can come back when we look at the neighborhood zoning around the dotted line ones. But I'm interested to hear what you guys have to say and what the planning department's thoughts are on that especially.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah, and I think for Bonner and Alexander, my thought is you have basically what 10 to 15 year old new development that is the frontage on Mystic Ave. So if someone was to bundle those parcels, they're probably not knocking that thing down. So it's not even really on Mystic Ave if they bundled those and built those. So that is where I'm most inclined. And I tend to agree with you on that middle, the dotted lines around the Hancock Streets, Hancock Court, Hancock Ave, Hancock Street, I think. I mislabeled the Facebook event on the wrong one one time. go collect everybody. Um, yeah, so that's just my thought. I'll leave motions till the end of the discussion.
[Zac Bears]: Just wanted to clarify if I, sorry. I meant the parcels here on Hicks Ave. Here. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Maybe, that was just an idea, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: It's really everything, I mean, if folks have been back there, you have whatever number rear Mystic Avenue, and then there's a private long road that's really like a parking lot, and that abuts the park and the school property, well, it abuts the park and then some industrial, basically anything that side of what is currently proposed as the commercial zone is what I'm thinking of.
[Zac Bears]: Like, it's basically what's abutting the school, the park and the public housing.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just think we've already answered this question with the option B, which is defining maximum height by stories and not by amount of feet. And therefore, if someone wants to build 18 foot stories for life science, they can, or if they want to build 10 foot stories for residential, they can. And then we don't have to worry about having two different standards and trying to mix and match them. I just think that would be the way to go. I mean, mixed use three, you could end up I guess you could end up in a situation where a life science developer wants to build a tower. It seems unlikely to me that a life science developer wants to build a 14 story tower with 18 foot floors all the way up to 14 stories. Just seems like it's probably not going to happen. And if it was going to happen, or even if a developer proposed it, the discussion and site plan review would probably be, maybe don't do that. That's the only place where I think if we were to go with option B, there would be a conflict, because option B in the dimensional cinders doesn't have a maximum height by feet. It just has a maximum height by story. I don't know if that's intentional or unintentional, but if it was intentional, I really liked the idea.
[Zac Bears]: OK.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. I mean, I have some, the other reason I think perhaps just doing it without having two different height measurements, if you do this right now, if we were to put the height limits from, I guess, like the 12 story, right? Okay, maybe I'm misreading this. Would the maximum building height in mixed use three under option A be 54 plus 96? what would have to be to allow 12 stories if 11 of them were 10 feet tall and the other one was 18, right? So this is where I think we're gonna start having mathematical conflicts if we have two different measures of maximum height.
[Zac Bears]: And then so the total building height would be maximum 150 feet?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, because that's the only way you can get it's 128 feet if you had 12 stories at the minimum floor height.
[Zac Bears]: And I think my suggestion for that is have a minimum number of stories, a maximum number of stories, a minimum floor height per story, and a maximum floor height per story. And then I guess we could also have a maximum building height that is the number of stories times the maximum floor height, but then it's redundant. So that's just my thinking there to make sure that I understood this exactly right. But something like that. At that point, you're just multiplying two numbers that are already in there to get a third number. And I guess if people feel like that's helpful to have that third number, you can include that too. But I just wanted to make sure I was reading it right. Because I was like, if the tower can only be 96 feet, then it can't be 12 stories. So thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Or, uh, yeah. Mixed use three and commercial. And I think that might be clear to the developer if they wanted to do life science too. Right. It's like, instead of having to go back and calculate, Oh, I can build 18 foot floors. It's like, Oh, the maximum height is what I need.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I think we have an oversimplified understanding of the commercial real estate market in the conversation. Downtown office buildings where foot traffic is significantly reduced are seeing significant reductions in valuation. I was talking to Ted. We're not seeing that reduction in valuation in our commercial properties. Most of them are seeing use. Some of the office buildings by Wellington are having some occupancy questions. But I think what we're talking about is a little bit different than like the downtown Boston valuations. And I don't think Cambridge, like Boston's desperately asking for a property tax class shift because their office buildings are, there's a, there's a ton of new class A offices that were built. And a lot of the valuation drops are in like a little bit older or significantly older class B office buildings where Companies don't need as much space. There's not as much foot traffic. I think we're not, we don't really have that exposure here. And I think we're not trying to build office buildings mostly. So I think we're in a better spot on that front. You know, Alicia can certainly speak better to and Sal to what's coming into the city, the clean tech. that kind of thing. But I think that would be more the direction. I'd be surprised if someone said, I want to plop an eight foot office bill, you know, a century bank like or Herb Chambers, whatever it is now, like, which is now becoming, leave that for another day. A building like that, right, where it's just an office tower. And he's even, Herb Chambers' proposal is to change that because that's not a good use for, even though he likes the property, it's not what he wants it to be or whatever. So that's where I think we'd probably be okay. Who knows, who knows what will happen, right? As Alicia noted, some of this requires having the rule of law, but yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Sal is a better answer than me, but I just think we're not nearly as exposed on the commercial front as like a Boston with the office issue.
[Zac Bears]: within sentence, all right, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I like it, I like it when things are. I like it when the code puts the correct answer. I was just going to say that my motion will be to adopt the option B, which is the mixed use three along the entire highway side and the commercial on the non-highway side with the incentive zoning. That's my suggestion.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Well, that's, I was just going to say, add it to the use table. Is it right now? Is it in two or one?
[Zac Bears]: And the mix use one and two is more like neighborhood kind of like... Yeah, what does the R&D use line say right now in the proposed use table?
[Zac Bears]: Oh, if you click it, it opens it up.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, it's not letting me open it either. I wasn't able to open it.
[Zac Bears]: The setbacks question will probably iron itself out relatively quickly, I think.
[Zac Bears]: When I try to do that, it says can't access the file. Either way, I think I still have the floor. My point was generally being that I agree with including life science as a separate definition. I just think we need to make sure that it's allowed in the same places that R&D is allowed. And if we think that MX3 and commercial makes the most sense for that, that makes sense to me. Oh, yeah, this was in the document that was attached to the agenda. I was like, where is it? And that's the page I have open.
[Zac Bears]: So I think we just want to make sure we align those. Would Alicia, sorry, would Green Tech fall, like let's say they want to build Green Tech, is that manufacturing?
[Zac Bears]: If some Green Tech company wanted to
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I think I got it down.
[Zac Bears]: It sounded like there was kind of a... Yeah, if we could just get to the nugget of what the difference like, what do we, what's the difference between doing the street setback and the other? I'm still not sure. I don't phrase it.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, pros and cons.
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead. This is just for the Medford section.
[Zac Bears]: We don't need to do this in the MassDOT section, we're pretty sure, because the setbacks are basically already wide.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, and that's more like we're going to have to negotiate with MassDOT to have it be something more active than bushes and grass, but that's a MassDOT question, not a property owner question.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And are the difference between these two options that one may be more legal than the other to ask of the property owners?
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, what's October 9th is?
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: All right. I have the motion. Great. It's six bullet points. I'll just send it now. guys. Um I'll read it. It is. Promotion to move forward with drafting based on land East option be with incentive zoning. Um adjust the discussed parcels on the southwest end of Hicks Motion to add life science to use table and align slash update definitions of research and testing laboratory manufacturing and the scientific research accessory use and allow them either by right or special permit and the proposed mixed use three and commercial districts. I do not add the parcels to these zones that do not have Mystic Ave frontage between Bonner Ave, Alexander Ave, and Crescent Street, Malvern Terrace, Hancock Court. So that would be like that inner portion, the kind of L-shaped one, as well as the stuff right behind the Harrow's Chicken Pie and the Dunkin' Donuts. And finally move ahead with assessing the viability of street setback option A, the 15 feet plus three foot building setback and incorporating that into the final language.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yeah. Just the no incentive zoning at the, just that little HICSAB mixed use one kind of, I don't know if we want to call it that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just that, that's, exactly.
[Zac Bears]: 17 2024 Medford City Council, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records 24469 offered by Councilor Tseng. Be it resolved that the City Council celebrate the importance of the Chevalier Theatre and commend the friends of Chevalier and Dream Act Gym for their hard work in securing, ensuring the success of the theatre, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions or statements from members of the Council? Seeing none, I will recognize Mr. Krause. Ken, how are you? Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Ken. Any further questions or comments by members of the council? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. On the motion of Councilor Tseng seconded by. Seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, I mean, from what I've read, negative, the motion passes. Councilor Tseng offered a resolution under suspension. Is there a motion to suspend the rules? On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Calderon to suspend the rules to take paper 24471, offered under suspension by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. 24471.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. President Fierce? Yes. I have a negative. The motion passes. 24471 offered under suspension by Councilor Tseng. Be it resolved that the City of Medford stands in unconditional support of our Haitian brothers and sisters and of all immigrants who are part of this community wherever they may come from. We are grateful for the skills, energy, and vibrancy they bring to Medford at this time when hateful and divisive rhetoric is being promulgated by highly visible people on the national level we believe that it is important to restate our commitment to all residents in our city, all residents of our city. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Lazzaro, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: As a friendly amendment, no need for a roll call. Great. All right. Any further discussion by members of the Council? We'll go to the podium for public participation. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the public? I will go to Zoom, Eileen Lerner, and then we'll come back to the podium. Eileen, I've pressed the ask to unmute button. If you can accept my invitation to unmute. I've requested that you unmute, Eileen. You're going to have to press a button. It should show up as a pop-up. All right, Eileen, we'll come back to you. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Eileen Lerner on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. At the podium, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I would also note that the city annually hosts a Haitian Flag Day ceremony, and I remember even in my time at Medford High School that that was a day of celebration in our schools. And obviously there's always more that we can do, but I just wanted to note that that is a regular city event every year. Any further comment by members of the council or the public on this matter? Seeing none, on the motion of Vice President Collins to approve as amended, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes. Negative. The motion passes. Records of the meeting of September 10th, 2024 passed to Councilor Lazzaro. How did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to approve the record, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. And the affirmative then the negative, the motion passes. Reports of committees 24-033 offered by Vice President Collins, Planning and Permitting Committee, September 11th, 2024, report to follow. Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, 0 in the negative. The motion passes. Refer to committee for further discussion. 24-468 offered by Councilor Tseng be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the governance committee discuss updates to the city charter, including creating a timeline for action and reviewing proposals of the charter study committee once finalized. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: So I motion to move this to, um, the governance committee motion of Councilor Tseng to refer this to the governance committee, seconded by councilor Callahan, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: legal notice, sorry, 24439, legal notice, Medford City Clerk's Office continued notice of a public hearing. The Medford City Council will hold a public hearing in the Howard F. Alden Chambers on the second floor of Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford MA, and by Zoom on Tuesday, September 10th, 2024 at 7 p.m. A link to be posted no later than Friday, September 6th, 2024 On a petition for a special permit for hours filed by Panda Express, 491 Riverside Avenue, Medford MA 02155. The petitioner is seeking to extend the hours of operation of the restaurant in a commercial C1 zoning district at 4091 Riverside Avenue, parcel ID Q1511. The petition seeks a special permit for hours, Monday through Sunday, and actually, there's an amendment, so I'm going to read the revised request now. Panda Express, revised request, we request an extended hour special permit to operate until 12 a.m., Monday through Thursday, and 1 a.m. on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. This is in line with extended hour special permits recently granted to Great American Beer Hall, Snappy Patty's, and Pinky's Pizza. We believe the disruption to the neighborhood from these extended hours will be minimal, because we are mostly surrounded by businesses and do not have a drive-through, but a set of ample parking for visitors and food delivery drivers to park and come inside. We look forward to working with the council to develop a plan that works for the neighborhood. The petition and plan may be viewed in the office of the City Clerk, Room 103, Medford City Hall, Medford MA, call 781-393-2425 for any accommodations aids. City of Medford is an EEOA 504 employer by order of the City Council, signed Adam L. Herdeby, City Clerk. I'm going to reopen the public hearing, or as was continued from the last meeting, public hearing is reopened. And if the petitioner would like to speak about their revised request.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll open it up to questions from the council. You can go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further questions or comments by members of the Council? One second. Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: That was a, that was a complicated vote. There were multiple special permits. Some passed, some didn't. Okay. Some we weren't sure on.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: But you just want to note it's a Monday through Thursday and midnight, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, 1 a.m. And there was a vote on raising canes last year. It was a there was not five votes, which is the sufficiency needed to pass. Councilor Callahan, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: I can think of some times I've left this room around 2 a.m. and would like some orange chicken, but that's just me. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion. Actually, I need to... We'll take that, but first we need to hear from everyone, close out the public hearing, then we can take the motion. Any other comments from members of the council? Seeing none, I'll go back to the petitioner. Sorry, it took a little longer to get back to you, but the floor is yours. Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: That would be great. All right, if nothing else, I'm gonna just wanna open it up to members of the public, either in the chamber or on Zoom, if they have a comment during this public hearing, either for, against, or otherwise. Is there anyone who has a public comment on the extension of hours of Panda Express, Monday through Thursday to midnight, and Friday, Saturday, Sunday to 1 a.m.? ? I have one person on Zoom, Douglas H. Post. I will request that you unmute. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. Any further comment on this matter? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. We had a motion from Vice President Collins to approve pending public comment and with a 30, 60, 90 day review. Do we also want to add in that the petitioner noted hosting a community day? I think that's a great thing. So with that further amendment, as seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, affirmative or negative, the motion passes. Thank you very much and good luck. Motions, orders and resolutions 24470 offered by Councilor Tseng be resolved with the committee on public health and community safety. Discuss the possibility of installing sanitary facilities in public spaces, including in our parks. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion, Councilor Lazzaro?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins and then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other comments, members of the council? Councilor Callahan, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I tried this about three years ago. Good luck. Any further comment from members of the council? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Gaston. Any further comment by members of the council? Seeing none. On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve and refer this to the Public Health and Community Safety Committee, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, none of the negative, the motion passes. 24-467 offered by mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Capital Stabilization Fund appropriation requests. September 12 2024 regarding Capital Stabilization Fund appropriation request dear President Bears and members of the city council I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves the following two appropriations from the Capital Stabilization Fund Spring Street at Central Avenue traffic signal safety improvement project any amount of $283,535 and matching funds for the MAS, Department of Environmental Protection, VW and refuse truck electric grant program to purchase one electric refuse truck in the amount of $178,000. As your honorable body knows, the capital stabilization fund presently has a balance of $5 million. Further, any appropriation from stabilization account requires a two thirds majority vote of the city council. Director of Traffic and Transportation, Todd Blake, will be present to answer any questions on the Traffic Safety Improvement Project, and CPA Manager, Teresa DuPont, will be available to present any and We'll be present to answer any questions on the electric refuse truck project. Finally, I respectfully request that both, or at least the traffic signal safety project, that your Honorable Body move forward tonight as the city is under some tight timelines for award, and Director Blake will elaborate on those at or before the meeting. And we did receive, I'm sorry, thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn mayor. We did receive a communication from Director Blake. He's also here, but I'll read the communication. I'm providing the following additional information in anticipation of some possible questions regarding this request. The city's director of traffic and transportation, as well as the city engineer and former city engineer, current DPW commissioner, Prioritize this project, that is the Central Ave Spring Street traffic signal. Prioritize this project when developing and prioritizing the city's capital project list slash needs. The existing traffic signal is substandard, not meeting national and state guidelines for traffic signals. Specifically, it lacks the minimum number of signal heads per approach to only having one per approach. The traffic signal also lacks pedestrian actuation and indications, walk slash don't walk indications, et cetera. This project is necessary to add these important safety features as well as to provide accessible ramps so the accommodations are available to all persons of all abilities. The city hired a consultant to design the project, which includes an overhead mast arm for better visibility and to achieve the two signals per approach standard. The city secured allocated funding using CityARPA to design and construct the project. The amount sought through that program accounted for paying the consultant as well as paying for the construction of the project based on the construction cost estimate produced by that design. During the bidding process, the city received three qualified bids. However, unfortunately, all three bids are higher than the estimated construction costs, substantially higher. Therefore, the project requires additional funding to be able to award a contract and proceed with construction. The city project is seeking $283,535 from the capital stabilization fund. For context, the total construction cost is $749,535 based on the low bid plus estimated police details. The construction estimate had been $466,135. The design fees are $141,900. We do not anticipate receiving lower bids if rebidding the project, and there do not appear to be cost savings from value engineering. It is already minimum work required. There are multiple time constraints involved. Since it is ARPA funded, the funds need to be allocated by the end of the calendar year. Also, the contract must be awarded within 45 days of the bid opening. Because of these time constraints, we also not only ask for the funds, but we request approval be given tonight. without continuing to subsequent meetings, this will help ensure the award within the proper time constraint. If we do not move forward or miss our window of opportunity to construct this project, safety will remain compromised at this location, possibly leading to incidents and or claims that could be avoided. Thank you for your time and consideration on this important matter. Sincerely, Todd Blake, Director of Traffic and Transportation. So that's the letter. Any comments, questions, thoughts by members of the council or questions for Director Blake or Manager DuPont? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: That was an error. So that's an error in the letter for the mayor. It's an appropriation request. So, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Kaya and Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. And I want to note that the mayor has reached out to schedule a committee of the whole in October to discuss stabilization fund requests. Now that ARPA funding is expiring, we're coming back to why free cash exists and exists for these one-time expenditures. So the mayor, I'm working with the mayor to schedule a committee of the whole on an October Wednesday to discuss for the capital stabilization fund. And then we have the needs for departments from the stabilization funds, I think, mainly starting with the capital stabilization fund. These two items were urgent, and that's why they're before us tonight, and the mayor communicated that to me, in addition to this letter as well, in the note that most of the other stuff will be coming to us through a committee process for review And I just think Spring Street and Central Ave, that's a rough intersection if anyone's ever been walking through it or driving through it or biking through it. And hopefully between this project and the speed humps, we'll see some safety improvements there. Any further questions or discussion by members of the Council on this paper? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments by members of the Council? I see Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: seconded by councilor Callahan. I just want to note two things. Free cash to the balance is no longer 34 million. There were at least $11 million in appropriations on June 25th to these stabilization funds. And the request before us tonight are appropriations from the capital stabilization fund, which is for capital purposes. So that's what these funds can be used for at this point. On the motion to sever the two papers by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: No. Finally, if there were two in the negative, the motion passes. I just want to note now that this is severed, change my vote to yes, because I might need the Councilor to take this. There's matching funds for a grant here. So I'd like to hear from Director DuPont about what a delay would mean. Sorry, manager. No, no, I love it. I have literally no authority to do that. It's all right.
[Zac Bears]: What would a delay mean?
[Zac Bears]: So we need it in eight months and we have eight months of work to do to get this done. I mean, it might not be eight months, but maybe close to six. Right. Okay. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion by Councilor Collins to reconsider the vote on the motion to sever, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Just to clarify, in the motion to reconsider, a yes vote would mean that we will then take another vote. So if you want to consider this question of severing again, you will vote yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: You're voting separately, but also motions can be made on them separately.
[Zac Bears]: You have a question, Councilor Callahan?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, this is a vote on do we want to reconsider severing? Because Councilor Collins was in the majority on the vote to sever, Councilor Collins can make a motion to reconsider that vote. If we vote yes to reconsider, we would then take another vote on the motion to sever or have further discussion on the motion to sever. Essentially, it brings us back to discussion on the motion to sever. Thank you. On the motion to reconsider by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion to reconsider passes. On the motion to sever by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callahan, is there further discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll on the motion to sever. I know we're using up those vote slips.
[Zac Bears]: No.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: No. Five in the negative, two in the affirmative, the motion to sever fails. Any further discussion on the paper before us? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve the appropriation request, seconded by Councilor Leming, is appropriation from the Capital Stabilization Fund. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, we'll go to members of the public. We will go to the podium. Gaston, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Director DuPont on this in a second. It sounded like she said, Manager DuPont, I keep promoting you. But it sounded like you said sourcing would take 60 to 90 days. That includes a procurement process, if I'm correct. Part of the chapter, I can't remember the chapter, but the procurement law is 30B. The chapter procurement laws is that you have to have a defined source of the funds before you can go out to procurement. So I think that's what the issue is here that they have to have the funds approved, then go to procurement to get the vehicle. And they're just you're matching the grant amount that was authorized by DEP. All right. I think that's the answer there.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. The bidding is after the funding is authorized, and if the bid comes in lower than the authorized funding, then I believe that money would revert back to the source of funding. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the public or members of the council? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: All right. On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming to approve, Ms. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to public participation. Public participation is open. If you can raise your hand on Zoom or go to the podium, I do have two letters to read, but I will read those after public participation by people who are either in the room or on Zoom. Any public participation by anyone in the chamber or on Zoom? Please raise your hand on Zoom or speak up in the chamber. Seeing none, I have two letters to read. These were sent to me by constituents, sent to the president and requested to be read at the council meeting. These are not reflective of, these are not statements by me. I am reading letters from the public for public participation. Dear councilors, I have witnessed the appalling personal attacks against our progressive city councils by people incorrectly calling themselves All Medford. They have screamed, interrupted, kept people from speaking, and ignored honest answers to their concerns. Meetings have dragged on to 1 a.m. Our new city councilors are sincere, thoughtful people trying to make Medford a better place for all, with more affordable housing, an end to discrimination, and enough funding to support our underfunded public schools. One needn't agree with them on everything, but disrespectful conduct keeps our city from moving forward. I have lived in Medford for 43 years, and sadly will be departing soon for senior housing. I can honestly attest that Medford is a better place now, with better schools, more diversity, a brand new police station, interesting new restaurants, and potentially a new fire station than it was when I first came here. The effort to overturn the regressive Proposition 2.5, which has resulted in underfunding our schools and roads, is a positive thing. Of course, in the end, it will be put to the voters. I do understand that this may pose a small hardship for low-income homeowners, but most cities and towns have already passed overrides. People can, of course, vote against it, but they should not attack those who, in good faith, want to improve our city with essential funding by putting it on the ballot or misrepresent their views, as was done in heated discussions of the real estate transfer fee. Thank you. Susan Gerard, Medford, Massachusetts. That's the first letter, and then I have another letter. Dear Medford City Council President Zach Bares, I request you read this letter at the next City Council meeting. This past year, I've attended many City Council meetings, mostly on Zoom, a few in City Hall chambers, largely because of closed captioning, which allows me to hear more of what people in the chambers are saying. The deficient sound system in City Hall, I understand, is going to be renovated, and that will be good for everyone. A second reason I have often preferred not to be physically present in the City Council Chambers is because of an unruly mob of residents who come to meetings to register their displeasure on hot-button issues like the budget, real estate transfer fee, or renaming of the Columbus School. These meetings have been perforated by the group ironically now known as All Medford, the small group of residents regularly indulging, screaming, shouting, and insulting our Revolution Medford-endorsed City Councilors, After one particularly contentious meeting I attended in City Hall, councillors were individually singled out for repeated personal attacks and subjected to blanket attacks on all of them because they belonged to our revolution, Medford. I was so disturbed by the vitriol, the lies, the hatred, and the unwillingness to even listen to what Councilors had to say. I'm so sorry that you, Zach, and the other OR-endorsed Councilors have been subjected to this abuse. I want to assure you that a majority of residents who voted for you and all our Revolution Medford candidates still support the work you've been doing or attempting to do in Medford. Know that we are still here. All Medford is not all Medford. You were elected on the basis of the People's Platform, and we who voted for you still want to work on that agenda. the city budget we need to support the schools and city services, the creation of an equitable and welcoming city government, desperately needed affordable housing, community safety, and a climate-resilient community. As we explore solutions to these and other issues, I support you, as do the many who voted for our Revolution Medford candidates. Please do not allow the not-all Medford to derail or curtail any of your intentions, goals, or efforts. We who support you are many. There are a small group of disgruntled people whose leadership and control has been rejected by the voters. voters. Sincerely, Eileen Lerner, Knight-Adams Circle, Medford, Massachusetts. Those are the letters. Is there anyone else who has any public comment at this time? Seeing none, is there anything else that anyone wants to look at on the agenda? We're at unfinished business, seeing no motions. Is there a motion on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to adjourn by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: It looks like he's dropped off.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. I need everyone to stick around.
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead. Thank you, vice president Collins. I just think, um, in this case, we should, I think, try to keep it simple. We're not, uh, Seattle, you know, we're not a city of that scale. And I just think we should reflect the capacity of our staff and also the, you know, sometimes we're not working with, giant, I don't think we, I don't even want to implement a policy that is too much for some of the smaller folks who might want to be developing something here. So, um, I think we should err on the size of user friendliness while also maintaining, uh, green priorities, but I could see how we could go down a rabbit hole pretty quick. Something that I've talked about is, you know, instead of having it be a score between zero and one, let's do between zero and a hundred. I think people really understand that scale. All you have to do is multiply everything by 100 anyway, so it doesn't really change the substance of it, but just trying to make it a little more comprehensible to the average person, I think, is something we should consider here as well. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I just think that that was something I wanted to bring up too. I think how this interfaces with the stormwater work and also the potential tree ordinance, you know, those are gonna be two questions. I think there was a discussion where some of the green scores leave the stormwater element out of it, since stormwater regulations are handling that separately. And that might be the road we want to go down here.
[Zac Bears]: Just given what we've discussed, I think site plan review makes a lot of sense, and I think we should move in that direction as a threshold.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I think this is a great start. I think there's, I kind of like the Portland model versus another point space model. Although if we did a point space model maybe for this and for TDM and for green score and we could use the same scale for all of them that might be a way to also use a point space model and have the simplicity. I just think we don't want to overload this I think, you know, to me. . I think we are talking about you know, district squares and corridors only at this point. So, I mean, I'd be open to thinking about it in other ways. Maybe the overlays and the infill are ways to go into the neighborhoods and not have this incentive zoning model be the same application. but to me, right, if we're talking Salem street, the quarter we've been discussing, you know, we're talking about four by right. And then the incentive would only go up to six with a step back. So, you know, really all you could say is if you do a certain amount of affordable housing, you get two, or maybe if you do additional ground for commercial and investment in improving the transportation infrastructure, you get one story, something like that. Um, I think, uh, mystic ab is a little more open. Um, I think we're talking like maybe a, by right eight up to 12 or 14. So there's a little bit more room there, but I still think you could get there pretty simply if you left your incentive categories relatively simple, and then also did it by floor. And then we could treat like green score and TDM as separate things since most of these are, we're talking all of these, everything I've just talked about would trigger site plan review. So that might be the way to kind of, to be able to. Avoid this Byzantine bureaucracy and still do, uh, all three of these things at once.
[Zac Bears]: I just, I want to throw out the idea too. I think that the, um, let's say that these are kind of, and I like what Paula just said about in the neighborhood, like we have the square and corridor districts, then we're going to have the neighborhood districts. I think something like what was just mentioned, like in the neighborhood districts would make sense for, It's more about the units and the affordable housing. And it's a little bit simpler. Like if it's three, maybe you could get four. If the fourth is affordable. I mean, that's probably not going to work. We saw in Somerville, they tried to do, you could do triple-decker, but one of them has to be affordable. Nobody built anything. So they went citywide triple-decker. So I think at that scale, but the four to eight with two affordable or one affordable, you know, you're still talking about a 12, 12% affordable, even if one of those units is affordable deed restricted, which is, I think higher than we're requesting right now in a 10-unit building, if I'm remembering the inclusionary right. So something like that might work. I just think another thing that would be helpful, um, let's say we went with ground floor commercial, uh, investments in improving transit infrastructure and affordable housing as three things for the incentive zoning. Um, and then we can have green score and TDM also as out there as well. I think it would be useful for like the community development board to make an recommendation on a regular basis about, um, minimum thresholds, like if we were to do ground floor commercial, would it be 20% of the ground floor, a certain amount of square footage relative to the size of the building? Affordable housing as well, I think is a little simpler. Transportation funding just to factor in. exactly that situation that I was just mentioning out of Somerville where they said, Oh, we'll do triple deckers everywhere, but one has to be affordable. It wasn't an effective policy because it didn't build any new housing units. Um, so I think we want to make sure if we were to say a hundred percent of the first, if you get extra floor, it's 15 foot step back. So it's only 60% of the square foot of the first floor and the whole first floor has to be commercial. that's not going to get us anything. We're actually reducing, you know, it's a countervailing force. So I think some element of the zoning where the CD board is, who's reviewing these in site plan review is kind of making a recommendation every so often based on their experience as to what these thresholds should be for different incentives, I think would be helpful too. And some of that's from William's email. And the other part of it, that I think is harder is adjusting to market conditions. I, you know, I have a harder time saying, well, if the interest rate's 7%, then we should only ask for half as much affordable housing or half, you know, that's, I think, a much harder argument to make. But I think at least getting it right and getting those recommendations based on the CD board's experience and site plan review of how these incentives are playing out will be really useful.
[Zac Bears]: One, actually, just we should make sure that none of this conflicts with the changes we made about the definition of family and people living in a household. We removed a lot of language around blood relations and things that courts have said we can't actually legislate. And we don't want to add anything back, obviously. Kind of what Councilor Callahan was saying, similar.
[Zac Bears]: City Council, September 10th, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. 24462 offered by Councilor Lazzaro. Resolution to recognize and celebrate National Recovery Month. Be it resolved that the City Council recognize and celebrate September as National Recovery Month. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Any further comment by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there a motion?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 24-465 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the City Council send our deepest condolences to the family of longtime Medford resident, volunteer, and all around amazing person, Frank Zizzo, on his recent passing. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further comments? I'd just like to turn to Vice President Collins. I just want to send my condolences as well. I went to school with Tyler. I know it's a hard time. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Is there a motion to take the paper under suspension?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins to take the paper under suspension by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Opposed, motion passes. 24-466 offered under suspension by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the Bedford City Council observe a moment of silence in recognition of the lives lost on September 11th, 2001. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of councilor Scarpelli to approve and have a moment of silence seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. I'll oppose motion passes a moment of silence. Thank you. Records, the records of the meeting of August 13th, 2024 were passed to Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins, how did you find the records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve the records by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24033, offered by Vice President Collins, Planning and Permanent Committee, August 14th, 2024, report to follow. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Other motion approved by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 23449 offered by Councilor Lazzaro. Sorry about that. Public Health and Community Safety meeting August 13th, 2024 report to follow. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to approve the committee report, seconded by. Seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24461, resolution to meet and discuss updates to the Road and Control Ordinance. Be it resolved that the Committee on Public Health and Community Safety meet with the Health Director to consider updates to the Road and Control Ordinance, Chapter 6, Article 4. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the mention of Vice President Collins to move this paper to, refer this paper to public health and community safety, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to take paper two, four, four, six, three and public participation out of order. Seconded by seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. Opposed motion passes. Do you want to speak before I read the paper? Sure. 24463, a resolution to reappoint City Clerk Adam L. Hurtubise, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we reappoint City Clerk Adam L. Hurtubise to a new three-year term, be it further resolved that this term shall expire on September 10, 2027.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Welcome, head clerk Annie Kelly. Thanks. Any discussion on the paper or any motions? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having affirmative and negative, the motion passes. Thank you, Head Clerk Annie Kelly. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Next, we'll go to public participation. First, we have a petition paper from Cindy Watson. I will read it while we welcome Cindy to the stage. To the Honorable City Council of Councilors, the undersigned respectfully pray for support from the City Councilors in recognizing the importance of the Chevalier Theatre. The Chevalier is the economic engine for the City of Medford. Cindy Watson, 65 Valley Street, 4D, Medford, MA. Welcome.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Cindy. I'll go to Councilor Tseng. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I think that's what you're saying, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Cindy, thank you so much for coming down. I just want to thank you and the friends for all the work that you do. You know, whenever we see a CPA application or community fund or whatever it might be, I know we want to support the Chevalier as much as we can. And supporting the friends is a key part of that as well. and the organ society and all the other folks who have done so much for the for the building, you know, I'm on the Brooks estate board. So I kind of understand firsthand a little bit what it feels like sometimes when you're trying to raise money for the city owned property, and then the city is not pitching in services and resources that are needed. You know, I am an advocate of trying to put more of the city's funds into supporting Chevalier directly, I know that there's a very very small amount of money that's going to support Chevalier right now from the city budget. And I think that's really important. So thank you for coming down. And I do want to just ask, not just for us, but to share with anyone who may be watching, what's the best way that folks can join as a member? Is there a website to go to? And what's the best way to sign up for the annual meeting?
[Zac Bears]: I can't promise everybody, but sure, some of us will attend. But if the public wants to attend, how can they find out more and sign up?
[Zac Bears]: Approximately. And is it friends, what's the URL? friendsofthechevalier.com?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you so much, Cindy.
[Zac Bears]: All right, this was public participation. Do we have any other public participation at this time? please come forward. This is the public participation section of the meeting. If you have any comment you'd like to make not related to a paper on the agenda. Seeing no one in the chamber, no hands on Zoom, public participation is closed. Hearings, 24439. Petition for a special permit for hours, Panda Express. Legal notice, Medford City Clerk's Office. Continued notice of a public hearing. The Medford City Council will hold a public hearing in the Howard F. Alden Chambers on the second floor of Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford MA. Enviso on Tuesday, September 10, 2024 at 7 p.m. A link to be posted no later than Friday, September 6, 2024 on a petition for a special permit for hours, followed by Panda Express, 491 Riverside Avenue, Medford MA 02155. The petitioner is seeking to extend the hours of operation of the restaurant in a commercial C1 zoning district at 491 Riverside Avenue, parcel ID Q1511. The petition seeks a special permit for hours Monday through Sunday, 11 p.m. to 3 a.m. Petition and plan may be viewed in the office of the city clerk, room 103, Medford City Hall, call 781-393-2425 for any accommodations and aides. The city of Medford is an EEO-AA-504 employer. By order of the city council, signed Adam L. Hurtubise, city clerk. Councilor Scarpellilli. Thanks, Councilor Villes. Do you want me to reopen the public hearing or do you want to go?
[Zac Bears]: The public hearing is open. We'd like to hear from the petitioner.
[Zac Bears]: We just get your last name for the record. Great. Um, with that, I will go to Councilors for questions.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to continue to a date certain next meeting. Next meeting is next Tuesday, September 17th. Perfect. Any further discussion? Vice President, Councilor Callahan, promotion.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to continue this to the September 17th regular meeting, this public hearing seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. So we'll come back next week and talk a little more. Thank you guys. Thank you. 24457, request for amendment to previously approved grant of location. Do I have a wave of the reading? I do not want to read this entire letter from... Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng? President Bears?, the reading in favor of summary. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. There is a request from National Grid to the City Council. There's a petition. There's a grant location application that was previously approved, and this is a request for amendment. We've received communications from KP Law and City Engineer Wartella. The folks that want, I could read them, but, Do we have a synopsis from the engineer? Sure, great. Do we have a brief synopsis of the request?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And if I remember correctly, if I may, just that what we had requested was that if there was a certain amount of pavement that was not going to be restored, that it be the restore other pavement in lieu of restoring that pavement. I believe that was the condition so that the square footage of pavement would, that would be the same that was restored or saying no.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Okay. I welcome his hard work.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, Mr. President, if I can. Sure, I just wanna, go ahead, Councilor Scarpelli, then we'll go to Vice President Collins and Councilor Lazzaro. I can also read the letter from council to the city.
[Zac Bears]: I could read the letter from Council if that would be helpful. I just wanted to get that summary out there as well. Dear Attorney Riley, thank you for your letter made 29th address to the City Engineer. The City of Medford has asked us to respond as Council. We have consulted with City Engineer, Director of Public Works and the Mayor in making this response. then location as you know this matter concerns the proper interpretation of that certain grant of location 23445 issued by the city council on November 14 2023 approving national bridge petition to construct a line of electric underground electric conduits in main street at the location specified The installation requires cutting and excavating a trench in the Main Street pavement for a length of approximately 370 feet. Main Street in this location was fully reconstructed less than five years ago and contains a median strip separating opposing lanes. This median strip is laid on top of the pavement bed, extending as a unbroken hall from the curb on one side of the roadway to the curb on the far side. As a condition of the grant of location, the City Council required National Grid to provide repaving of another roadway. equal to the work associated with curb-to-curb roadway restoration within the limits of the Main Street project. Curb-to-curb is an industry standard term referring to the full width of the roadway, and the restoration condition must be interpreted as such. The Council is familiar with the roadway in question, and if the Council's intent was to limit restoration limits to curb-to-median curb, it could have so specified. Please further note that Main Street is not a quote divided road. That term is used specifically in the industry for highways and state routes with a large median frequently unpaved and northbound southbound designations. Main Street is not designated that way. Restoration standard, the city readily acknowledges the authority of the Commonwealth to regulate the placement of utility lines in the city streets and with the application order DTE 98-22. entitled standards to be employed by public utility operators when restoring any of the streets, lanes, and highways and municipalities as an extension of that authority. In particular, section nine of the order sets forth the standards for pavement restoration following disturbance by utility. Section 9.1 provides that quote, all pavement disturbed by the work, unquote, shall be replaced with quote, homogeneous and in-kind pavement to the original strength and condition. Quote, homogeneous is defined as of uniform structure or composition throughout. Sections 9.2 through 9.15, 9.15 set forth particular standards relative to pavement restoration without regard to the age of the roadway. Section 9.16, however, provides that the municipality quote, shall have a jurisdiction to determine the pavement repair method to be utilized on all pavements which have been installed for less than five years. Pursuant to the grant location, the City of Medford has determined that the work proposed in Main Street, a street reconstructed within the past five years, requires curb-to-curb restoration within the project limits or its equivalent. As set forth in Section 9.16, quote, method is simply the procedure for accomplishing the task, and a curb-to-curb restoration is the method the City has reasonably selected. pursuant to section 9.16 of the order to restore Main Street to its original strength and condition, the structural integrity and life of a paved street as a whole is compromised by partial exclamations and patches, and such compromises can be avoided by curb-to-curb reconstruction to maintain the structural integrity of the street. The case, Colonial Gloss versus Town of Wilmington, cited by National Register for its interpretation of pavement with restoration requirements does not concern the disturbance of city streets reconstructed within the past five years, and thus does not apply to this matter. The timing of restoration work, the terms and conditions for work in public streets allowed by a grant of location are determined by the appropriate permanent authority as designated by section 74-141 of the city ordinances. In this case, the permitting authority for the Main Street project as approved and conditioned by the city council is the engineering division of the Department of Public Works. As you are aware, National Grid attempted to bypass the permitting process by contacting the DPW commissioner directly after meeting with the city engineer. Requiring the restoration work prior to commencing the Main Street project is essential to the city to ensure that the required work is satisfactorily completed. National Grid has repeatedly not completed promised work, one still being from 2019, and therefore the permit authority engineering is conditioning the permit for the Main Street project accordingly. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me, very truly yours, Jonathan D. Eichmann, attorney at KP Law. So it sounds like fundamentally the dispute is over the roadbed of Main Street and the city engineer and our council have made it clear that the median on Main Street is above the foundation of the roadbed and therefore curb to curb does not mean curb to median curb, but one curb to the other side because the roadbed is continuous under the median. Is that correct?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, Vice President Collins and Councilor Lazzaro, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just a minute. We'll go to attorney, we'll go to Councilor Callahan. You can tell it's been a month since I've done this. Councilor Callahan and Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: A motion to table is undebatable. Is it about the motion itself? Yeah. And technically we can't actually table, it's not gonna be a motion to continue the public hearing to a date certain, which is debatable. It's not a public hearing. It's an amendment to grant allocation. Nevermind, so we can table it. What's your question?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, there's a delay to the work.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I do have questions myself and haven't had the chance to ask them. I just think since the rate payers were brought up, do you know what the annual profit was of the Massachusetts Electric Company last year?
[Zac Bears]: It was $104 million. The year before that it was 120, year before that 122. Your parent company in the UK? Annual profits, 7.97 billion. So I think the assertion of returning this to the rate payers is indicative of the failure of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to structure our public utility system in a way that is beneficial to the public, and not in a way that pads the profits of very large corporations, which aren't even headquartered in this country, nevermind the state. Is your motion to table? All right. On the motion to table of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Sure, we have a letter from legal.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. On the motion to table and request legal representation by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Oh, yes. And by the way, when I said $7.97 billion, it's actually 7.97 billion pounds. My bad. Mr. Herbies, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: No. 4 in the affirmative, 3 in the negative. The motion is tabled. 6-4, petition for a common victor's license and is on market. Give me one moment here. Business, Muammar Barakteli, Nazar Market, 325 Rivers Edge Drive, Medford, and owner at 103 Beach Street, apartment one, Belmont. On fire, we have business certificate 2024, number 20. The petition has been received, letter of compliance received, state tax ID received, workers' compensation received, treasure collector received, building department received, fire department received, police department, traffic impact received, and health department received. Do we have a representative of Nazar Market here to speak to their petition? Anyone here for Nazar Market to represent on the petition? Either in person or on Zoom. If you're on Zoom, please raise your hand. Anyone for Nazar Market, common victuals license? Seeing none, is there a motion on the floor? On the motion to the table by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? A motion passes. 24047, resolution to request linkage fee updates in the city of Medford. an act updating the linkage exaction program in the city of Medford. This is a request by Councilor Leming pursuant to previous motions passed on updating the linkage fee. We have here two honorable representatives, Christine Barber, Paul Donato, and Sean Garberly, and our honorable Senator Patricia Jalen attached as a home rule petition to update the 1989 act. that established Medford's linkage program. Since 1989, this act has provided a critical source of funds for our police, our parks, our roads and traffic, and our water and sewers. The current act requires a new study every three years to update the exact amount of linkage fees, but in practice, since its institution in 1990, Medford has never performed such a study. Thus, the exact linkage amounts have not been updated since 34 years ago and have been drastically undervalued by the effects of inflation. As the city works to update the linkage fees and add a new source of revenue for affordable housing, We find that the original requirement for review every three years was likely to cost prohibitive. We therefore request two updates to the Act. The first extends the period of review from three years to 10 years. This mandates a more reasonable period in between studies. The second allows for automatic updates to linkage fees in between studies based on an inflation index. This would prevent fees from being undervalued over time from inflation and uses the same language that is as that established for the City of Watertown in 2022 Act of the Legislature, Chapter 302 of the Acts of 2022. We've enclosed the proposed language of the Act. Sincerely, Councilor Leming. An act updating the linkage exaction program in the City of Medford, Chapter 488 of the Acts of 1989, an act establishing a linkage exaction program in the City of Medford is hereby updated as follows. Section 2, Part 5 shall now read, the level of any exaction shall be reviewed at least every 10 years and reset as required based on the recommendation of the Office of Community Development and the Mayor of said City. In between reviews, updates to any exaction may be adjusted over time or retroactively based on changes in the consumer price index for all urban consumers compiled by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to approve the homework petition and send it to the mayor, seconded by Vice President Collins. Any questions or discussion? Councilor Kalia.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Any further discussion? I can. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: And the authorizing legislation also enabled an affordable housing, but that was never established.
[Zac Bears]: And I would just note that this change would just provide the authority to the city to update the linkage fees and to have an escalator for inflation costs. The city still needs to conduct a nexus study to actually update the rates. But I think we can all agree that what we assessed as the impact of police and fire roads or parks or streets and roads 34 years ago isn't what it's costing the city today.
[Zac Bears]: It also addresses the Supreme Court decision around, I believe, the rationale for the nexus studies, that if you're assessing impact fees, it has to be based on a rational basis test for having a study. And that's part of this as well. That's a recent court case. Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I'll second the motion to approve by Councilor Leming, seconded by Vice President Collins. Any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng? President Bears?. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve first reading, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, any further discussion? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: And just from the chair, just want to thank Vice President Collins as well between this and the work on the solid waste task force and our solid waste ordinances and the release of the solid waste plan and now focused on again now for our second pass at rodent control after the first pass at rodent control, which is obviously much needed with the wildlife feeding and overgrowth and amendments to the rodent control ordinance. really from this council and in partnership with the city administration worked hard to put together a comprehensive approach to trying to keep this rodent problem out of our community and try to improve our waste practices and I think you've been essential to that and I really want to thank you for that. Obviously, we have more work to do, and we're doing that with an incredibly limited set of resources and funds, which is really difficult, but trying to maximize what we can do given the limited staffing and limited funding is really impressive. So thank you very much. Any further discussion? On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve the first reading, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Ms. Schwerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes. So we'll see that for third reading in a few weeks. 24458 offered by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, established an EV charging repawing fund. dear president bears and members of the city council I respectfully request and recommend the city council approve the following amendment to chapter 2 article 5 division 4 of the city's ordinance by adopting the following change the table in section 2-964 authorizing revolving funds shall be amended to include an electric vehicle charging revolving fund as per the enclosed table and close the letter from the Director of Planning, Development and Sustainability, Alicia Hunt, that outlines this request, as well as a memorandum that provides supporting documentation. Finally, I'm enclosing a memorandum by Finance Director Auditor, Bob Dickinson, that provides the necessary certification pursuant to Mass General Law, Chapter 44, Section 53E and a half for establishing a revolving fund in the middle of a fiscal year. Climate Staff Planner, Brenda Pike, will be available to speak to this request and answer any questions that you may have. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. Brenda, do you have a presentation or just wanna?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I can see here from the charts provided that the kilowatt hours have gone up a lot and there's a projection for this year of doubling again. And given that the city right now is not charging at all, right, it's a It's $0.25 right now and this would take us up to $0.35. All right, I will go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve for first reading by Vice President Cohn, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Is there a public participation? I see Mr. Fiore. Would you like to speak on this paper? Sorry, my apologies. I didn't see you. We were just voting. The rule doesn't speak to that either way. Generally, I look for a hand on Zoom or someone standing here at the podium or waiting for the podium. Thanks. Any further discussion on the EV charging station? Seeing none, on the motion, Vice President Collins to approve the first reading. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative and negative. The motion passes. Thank you. And thank you, Director Dickinson.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Brenda. All right, 24-460 offered, submitted by Mayor Brian O'Connor, refunding loan order request. We have a prematurely thank you, Bob. Sorry about that. We have here, dear President Bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following loan order. City of Medford loan order water bonds, be it ordered that in order to reduce interest costs, the treasurer with the approval of the mayor is authorized to provide for the sale and issuance of refunding bonds pursuant to chapter 44, section 21A of the general laws or pursuant to any other enabling authority at one time or from time to time to refund any or all portions of the city's general obligation bonds outstanding as of the date of adoption of this order, and that the proceeds of the refunding bonds issued pursuant to this order shall be used to pay the principal redemption premium and interest on the bonds of the city to be refunded, and cost of issuance of the refunding bonds, and that the treasurer is authorized to execute such documents as may be necessary or desirable to carry out this transaction, including one or more refunding trust agreements with a bank or trust company, and further order that the treasurer is authorized to file an application with the appropriate officials of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Commonwealth to qualify under Chapter 44A of the general laws, any and all bonds of the city authorized to be borrowed pursuant to this loan order, and to provide such information and execute such documents as such officials of the Commonwealth may require in connection therewith, Finance Director Auditor Bob Dickinson will be prepared, present to answer questions on this matter. We respectfully submit it to the Mayor. We also have in accordance with the provisions of Medford City Council Rule 30 from KP Law, we have examined the above captioned loan order as to its legality and respectfully transmit this letter of notification of our findings. In opinion, the loan order in which an authorization is sought to refund any or all portion of the city's outstanding general obligation bonds as of the date of the loan order including the payment of the principal redemption premium and interest on the bonds of the city to be refunded and the cost of issuance of refunding bonds is in proper form and further such refunding bonds are authorized pursuant to section 21a of chapter 44 of the general laws as amended the loan order properly grants the treasurer with the approval of the mayor the authority to issue such refunding bonds of the city and duly authorizes the city to qualify said refunding bonds pursuant to chapter 44a of the general laws as amended It is also understood the city's bond council prepared and reviewed the loan order. Thank you very much. And please let us know if you have any questions. So we have here, I think I just, in a very long winded way, we have a paper here that the city would like to reduce interest counts by refunding and potentially reissuing bonds and that you require this loan order to do so.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: All right. On the motion for approval, do you have a discussion question? Sorry, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I believe the microphone is on.
[Zac Bears]: It's working. Hi. Thanks, Bob.
[Zac Bears]: We're gonna get them replaced soon, but you might wanna, yeah. Shane's about to yell at you for touching the thing too.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, thank you for recognizing that.
[Zac Bears]: Great, and so yeah, this would apply to all bonds out of any funds?
[Zac Bears]: So, um, is, is this, I guess my question is more, does this provide the city, the authority and perpetuity to conduct this process or only for these bonds? Um, this is for any bonds when we, and we just need to make sure we have it on file somewhere that we actually adopted this and can't find it if we did it before.
[Zac Bears]: But you wouldn't need to come back to us.
[Zac Bears]: All right, on the motion. Does this require multiple readings? I don't think it's an amendment to the ordinances.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think so. No. On a motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli to approve, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Senator Ferman, then I give the motion passes. I did miss Mr. Fury. Would someone call public participation?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming to open up public participation, seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Yes, I'm sorry about that. If you want to speak to the items that I missed you on prior, the floor is yours and I'll give you six minutes since I missed you twice.
[Zac Bears]: pause there for a second. I saw Councilor Collins. I'm saving your time. Councilor Collins, have you had a response?
[Zac Bears]: linkage fee right so one related to the affordable housing trust in addition to the four other ones this tonight no this tonight was just that the city has the authority to update i think there is an intent to add a fifth bucket as authorized by the legislation but that would have to happen through an ordinance separate from this
[Zac Bears]: I'm a fan of the, uh, IPD as a price deflator. So, you know, if we want to get into that, I will say this as a home rule petition, if, um, if the legislature were to be so kind as to deign to offer this council the authority to consider other price deflators, they could amend the Home Rule petition that we submitted, Representative Donato, Senator Jalen, Barbara, Representative Garberly, if they wanted to just say, the price deflator chosen by the city council and the mayor or something like that, that would be possible. But I do appreciate Councilor Leming's approach, which is if they passed it before, maybe they'll pass it again, which is a rarity. They only passed eight laws this term, so sometimes a little tough. But yeah, I'm an IPD fan because that's about that's the price bucket for state and local government relative constant GDP. And I think that's actually what we should be using, because it's the stuff that cities buy versus what people buy, which is a little different, but we can avoid that. And it looks like everybody's bored. So on behalf of the residents, please, please stop. Motion to adjourn. Yeah, here's what he has. I have a motion of council member to adjourn seconded by Councilor Keohane. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion passes, the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: In a meeting, Medford City Council, August 13th, 2024 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, and reports and records. Records. The records of the meeting of July 23rd, 2024 were passed to Councilor Callahan. Councilor Callahan, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Callahan to approve, seconded by? Second. Seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, I move the amendment. Negative, the motion passes. Reports of committees, 24-033 offered by Vice President Collins, Planning and Permanent Committee, July 24th, 2024, report to follow. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve the committee report, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative and none in the negative. The motion passes. Hearings. Petition for a special permit for hours for Panda Express. Legal notice. Medford City Clerk's Office. Notice of a public hearing. The Medford City Council will hold a public hearing in the Howard F. Alden Chambers on the second floor of Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford MA, and via Zoom on Tuesday, August 13th, 2024 at 7 p.m. A link to be posted no later than Friday, August 9th, 2024. On a petition for a special permit for hours filed by Panda Express, 491 Riverside Avenue, Medford MA 02155, the petitioner is seeking to extend the hours of operation of the restaurant in the commercial 1C1 zoning district at 491 Riverside Avenue, parcel ID Q-15-11. The petition seeks a special permit for hours, Monday to Sunday, 11 p.m. to 3 a.m. Petition and plan may be viewed in the office of the City Clerk. Room 103, Medford City Hall, Medford M.A. Call 781-393-2425 for any accommodations, aides. The City of Medford is an EEO-AA-504 employer. By order of the City Council, signed, Adam L. Herneby, City Clerk. Where this is a hearing, we will first go to the petitioner, and then I will go to councilors for questions, and then we will open the public hearing. Is petitioner for Panda Express available? Someone representing Panda Express to discuss their petition for a special permit. You can raise your hand and come to the podium in the chamber or raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, is there a motion? On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to table, give me one moment. The clerk has advised that we open the hearing and continue the hearing to a date certain if that's acceptable. I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there a motion to continue the public hearing to the date certain of, I believe our next meeting is September 10th. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to continue the public hearing to the September 10th regular meeting. Seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 from another negative that public hearings continue to the September 10th regular meeting. 24-457, request for amendment to previously approved grant of location, National Grid, to the City Council of Medford, Massachusetts, to whom it may concern. Please, enclosed, find a petition of National Grid covering the installation of underground facilities. This GOL grant of location application was previously approved, and this is a grant of location amendment request. If you have any questions, please contact Moses Okorokoro at nationalgrid.com. Please notify National Grid of the hearing date and time. To the City Council, respectfully, represents the Massachusetts Electric Company, DBA, National Grid of North Andover, Massachusetts. It desires to construct a line of underground electric conduits, including the necessary sustaining and protecting fixtures under and across the public way or ways here and after named. Wherefore, appraised after due notice and hearing as provided by law, it be granted permission to excavate the public highways and to run and maintain underground electric conduits together with such sustaining and protecting fixtures as it may find necessary for the transmission of electricity. Said underground conduits to be located substantially in accordance with the plan filed herewith marked Main Street, Medford, Massachusetts, the following streets and highways referred to WR number 30658427, Main Street, beginning at approximately 15 feet southwest of the center line of the intersection of Main Street and South Street, and continuing approximately 760 feet in the south direction, National Grid is petitioning to install 5-inch ducts between 101 Main Street and 151 Main Street, approximately 370 feet of 4 to 5-inch ducts from existing manhole MH186 to MH187, and approximately 390 feet of 2 to 5-inch ducts from existing manhole MH187 to MH188, mentored ma this link to approve previously approved grant location location approximately as shown on plan attached do we have a representative from national grid to speak to this petition please come to the podium in the chambers or raise your hands on zoom It seems like a no-show night. City Engineer Wattel, do you have anything you wanna add here? Just here. This technically isn't a table, this isn't a hearing, it's just under hearing. So your initial motion to table. The motion to table, Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: 24-456, petition for a common victor's license, shop and go. Business, Liza Trading Inc, DBA, shop and go, 374 Salem Street, Medford. Petitioner, owner, Nazia Rashid, 11 Palmer Street, Medford. On file, business certificate 2024, number 134, petition received. Letter of compliance received, state tax ID received, workers' compensation received, treasurer-collector received, building department received, fire department received, police department received, and health department received. Do we have a representative of Shop and Go? If you could come to the podium, please, and share a little bit about your business, and we'll go to the Councilor Scarpelli as the Chair of the Licensing, Permitting, and Signs. We're gonna have to, there's a button on there. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Great, Councilor Scarpelli. Any other questions by members of the council on this common victor's license application? Seeing none, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng? President Bears?. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yes. Are you Mr. Rashid?
[Zac Bears]: Oh, okay. What's your name?
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: When you're ready.
[Zac Bears]: Madam Vice President.
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clark, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: 7 in the affirmative, then the negative, the motion passes. 24-455 Executive Session, Various Litigations and Claims. To the Honorable President and Members of the Medford City Council, Medford City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, Dear President, Members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend your Honorable Body enter Executive Session pursuant to General Law, Chapter 30A, Section 21, subsection A3, to discuss strategy with respect to litigation concerning Samari Montes versus City of Medford, MCAT docket number 22BEM02938. I also recommend that the council's agenda state in the executive session notice that votes may be taken. Attorney John O'Connor will be present to provide the council with guidance on this matter. I further respect the request and recommend your honor body enter executive session pursuant to general law chapter 30A, section 21A3 to discuss strategy with respect to litigation concerning Teenagers Local 25 and the city of Medford MUP-22-9555. I also recommend the council agenda state the executive session notice that votes may be taken. Attorney Jarrett Collins will be present to provide the council with guidance on this matter. Thank you for your kind attention. Sincerely, Rehan Alago-Kern, Mayor. Is there a motion to enter executive session pursuant to Chapter 30A, Section 21A.3?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Bears? Yes. And the affirmative and the negative. Motion passes. We'll be entering executive session. 24-453, Medford call for election September 2024. Be it ordered that the Elections Commission be and is hereby authorized and directed to notify and warn such inhabitants of the city of Medford as were qualified by law to vote for candidates at the state primaries on Tuesday, September 3rd, 2024 to assemble at the polling places in their respective wards and precincts, and then and there to give their votes for Senator in Congress, Representative in Congress, Governor's Councilor, State Senator, State Representative, Clerk of Courts, Register of Deeds, and the polls of the said state primaries shall open at 7 a.m. and remain open until 8 p.m. We had further order that the following main polling places be and are hereby designated for use of the state primaries on September 3rd, 2024. The said polling places to be open 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Ward 1, Precinct 1, Andrews Middle School, Ward 1, Precinct 2, Firefighters Club, Ward 2-1 and 2-2, Roberts Elementary School. Ward 3-1, American Legion. Ward 3-2, Temple Shalom. Ward 4-1, Tufts University, Gancho Santa Ria. Ward 4-2, 22 Wacol Court, Auburn and North Street, Fondacaro Center. Ward 5-1 and 5-2, Missittuck Elementary School. Ward 6-1, West Menford Fire Station. Ward 6-2, Brooks Elementary School. Ward 7-1, Mystic Valley Towers North Building Entrance. Ward 7-2, McGlynn K-3-8 Public School. Ward 8-1, Senior Center. Ward 8-2, South Menford Fire Station. And I will recognize the Chair of the Elections Commission, Henry Malone, and our a member Erin DiBenedetto to share anything they'd like to share about this call for election for our state primary on Tuesday, September 3rd, 2024.
[Zac Bears]: Perfect. We're taking that next. Any questions for the Elections Commission on the call to election? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: That's so true. Great. And I am talking to Director Driscoll about some stuff around that too. I'll inform the council if it becomes relevant. and the president as well.
[Zac Bears]: the three candidates running on the democratic ticket that the winner that comes out of that race is the winner there's a partisan primary and there's a partisan primary there's a democratic primary there's three candidates yeah yeah
[Zac Bears]: I think we should generally avoid going down this road, but yes, there will be one candidate on the ballot in November for the Democratic Party, and there's no candidate running, I believe, for the Republican nomination.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know that we can We could do a B paper to communicate to the public that there's an election coming up and that they can contact the elections department, 781-393-2491, or they can go online wheredoivotema.com to find out who their representative, what is district they're in, their polling location.
[Zac Bears]: I think it's not very political.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins, if I could, just for our clarity, you requested to amend the paper that this be a citywide robocall to remind, and other outreach to remind people of where to vote when the election is occurring?
[Zac Bears]: For the September 3rd state primary.
[Zac Bears]: One second, Henry. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: This is already a B paper. This is an amendment to the B paper. Amendment to, okay. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, and if folks contact the Elections Department, they can find out more about the early voting at City Hall, as well as the mail-out balloting in addition to voting on Election Day. That's correct. September 3rd. Got it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. There's a motion on the floor as amended. If the amendment is accepted, I believe it now reads. Could you read it back, Mr. Clerk?
[Zac Bears]: All right, so then that's the amendment. Do you accept the amendment?
[Zac Bears]: All right, so on the motion, the B paper is to request citywide robocall to remind everyone where and how to vote in the September 3rd primary. Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. On the main paper, the call to election, Motion to approve by, sorry, it's been a while now, was it by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Senator Falco, and then negative motion passes. 24454, Medford election warrant, September 2024. Warrant for the Medford September 2024 state primaries election. To the residents of the city of Medford, Massachusetts, greetings in the name of the Commonwealth. You are hereby required to notify and warn the inhabitants of said city or town who are qualified to vote in elections to vote at. I've already gone through this at the polling locations from Ward 1 through 8. On Tuesday, the third day of September 2024, from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., for the following purpose, to cast their votes in the state primary election for the candidates of the political parties in the following offices, Senator in Congress for the Commonwealth, Representative in Congress, 5th District, Councilor, 6th District, as a governor's Councilor, State Senator, 2nd Middlesex District, State Representative, 23rd, 34th, and 35th Middlesex District, Clerk of Courts, Middlesex County, Register of Deeds, Middlesex Southern District. Given into our hands this 13th day of August 2024, the Medford City Council.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have a copy that you want us to sign? Could you come behind the rail and have us sign it? We're down Larry today, so he would do that, but thank you, Aaron. Um, we do have councilor Leming remotely.
[Zac Bears]: All right, on the motion by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Council Vice President, was that you Councilor Lazzaro? It's Council Vice President Collins to accept the warrant and introduce signatures. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. 24449 offered by Councilor Scarpelli, and if I may request a motion to join, I have a similar resolution. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. 24449 be it resolved. Thanks, Aaron. It was a thinner paper than I was expecting. Thanks. Thanks, guys. Be it resolved that the City Council discuss continued concerns dealing with rodent infestation in our community. Be it further resolved that we request a meeting with the Health Department and City Administration to schedule a strategic planning meeting dealing with a serious health concern across the City of Medford. And then I also have, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the Health Department undertake additional efforts in partnership with Tufts Medicine and the City of Malden to provide significant additional rodent control to mitigate the impact of construction at the former Malden Hospital site on the neighboring community. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the council? I'll go and then we can go to members of the public. But I just wanted to note specifically around the Malden Hospital site, I want to thank David Tedisco who sent around a number of emails, has been organizing his neighborhood. the city of bedford and the city of malden. tufts medicine at the malden hospital site is responsible for rodent mitigation and it is on malden land and so they have been very responsive. tufts medicine has made it clear they know they need to do more. mayor christianson as well and also director o'connor and mayor longo current have been involved in some of those discussions as well to to bring whatever resources we can to bear from the medford side. Thank you for noting the rodent control ordinance that we passed. The solid waste ordinance which really is going to help focus on reducing rodent populations in the commercial areas with the combined dumpster, for lack of a better word, in the private hauler program, which should really significantly improve both the efficiency and the requirements on the business districts and the businesses in those districts to keep their trash and waste away from rodents and to also centralize removal of it, which hopefully will help on a cost basis. I think the point is really well taken around funding and staff. We've heard time and time again from our animal control that we have been working on for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. road and control right now, even though everyone in the city and everyone in this room acknowledges that we need to be spending significantly more on that. So we do the best with what we have. What we have is too little and we need more funding for the city to effectively provide services such as road and control. With that, I will go to the podium and name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you and I just wanted to note on that point, the new solid waste contract and the solid waste councils are can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the new solid waste contract, because of how we can structured it with the State Department of Environmental Protection. We are receiving some funds specifically around an educational program around the solid waste so there should be more information going out to residents. through that education program. Now that is just limited to the trash, the recycling, the composting, um, funding for other stuff like the wildlife feeding, et cetera, would have to come from somewhere else. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Apparently, I didn't realize it was going to play you off like that. Zoom's getting a little snotty. On the Walking Court thing, there is a past mitigation plan that is part of the Walking Court project. The road and control ordinance that we passed, as well as some of the building code stuff that we've done, And maybe zoning requires all major project construction to have integrated pest management plans as part of the ordinance. And Director O'Connor can talk more about that. It'd be on file with the Board of Health in her office. And then I can also talk to Director Driscoll about trying to communicate out better that there is a plan to the residents.
[Zac Bears]: Kurt, please, you have three minutes, and I'm gonna try to shut off that noise. Thank you for the time.
[Zac Bears]: If you leave, I would ask you, Larry, if you leave your phone number with Emily, we can pass it around to the council. And I just want to thank you for coming down and sharing that information with us. We do hear great things about folks who work with you when the city refers you out. But I think it's really helpful and sobering for us to hear what you're saying. That's the experience that we've had issues. We had some folks I don't know, six months ago, maybe eight months ago, from the Hillside neighborhood on the other side from here and up by like Osgoode Street, talking about a couple of problem properties where we were trying to get code enforcement out there to address overgrowth and waste, and the city not having, essentially the private owners just being able to continue to get away with it to the public detriment. you know, it is a really important issue. But I do have a question from Councilor Callahan, if you don't mind. Yes, ma'am.
[Zac Bears]: And the carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, that's not, I mean, it's obviously deadly, but it's not a poison.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Any other questions? All right. Thank you for your time. Thank you for coming down. Yes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I can give more context on that. And again, Kit, if I get it wrong, please correct me. My understanding is that under prior trash contracts, there was kind of selective, some businesses were getting city pickup, some businesses were paying for private pickup. It was not really clear what the rhyme or reason was, but there was an equal treatment. some condo buildings were getting city pickup, some were having to pay for private. This contract straightens that out, A, from a pure fairness perspective, but it also, part of the ordinance that we passed establishes a private hauler program where there's essentially a preferred private hauler, which is the person that the city has, the group that the city has a contract with, and businesses or large residential buildings can for a contract at a preferred rate with that hauler because they're already in the community doing the public contract. And the idea is, and this contract just went into effect three, six, five weeks ago, six weeks ago. And I'm not sure when these provisions exactly start to kick in yet. I think there's some grace period in there. But the idea is that in the major squares, instead of having street pickup with city stuff overnight, that there would be potentially areas of public parking lots or areas on private property where you might have all of the businesses for that building using a single dumpster or multiple dumpsters, and then being part of this preferred hauler program to then be able to have the trash in a contained space that is subject to an integrated pest management plan and is rodent proof. I worked at roses for when I was a kid here and yeah putting out the trash. I mean I put it out because that's what my boss told me to do but I wasn't happy seeing the street lined and obviously one windstorm that night and we've seen that before in Medford Square and the trash is all over the square. So that is the intent. Councilor Collins seems to have more information than me so I will let her answer.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, one thing we're looking at is the fee and fine schedule. We've heard from our building commissioner right now that it actually costs more to add a new code enforcement officer because we're only charging certain rates than they're gonna actually bring back in, so it's cost negative. Is there a way to make that more cost neutral, cost positive? And you've heard a million times in this room, we don't have enough code enforcement, so I don't need to get into that. Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah. And I appreciate the comment. Um, one thing I think when we pass the road and control ordinance, we are limited. There's a state law around non-criminal disposition that limits the maximum amount of fines and how often you can do them. And I think that was one of the barriers for us in terms of using fines as a revenue source. I think we wanted to see, um, it's, I think it's a maximum of $300 per incident, and then there have to have certain time period between incidents. And it's a barrier that we face because of the state law around, around that. I don't know, when the legislature will change it, but that would be helpful. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so I can answer partially. So there is this state law that over overarches what cities and towns are able to do through a non-criminal disposition. One thing we are trying, my first term, like I think basically the only thing I really was able to get done was we worked on a the snow removal ordinance and one of the things we were trying to get done was looking into this and when we passed that snow removal ordinance update, there is now a provision where if you have a repeat offender, you can put a lien on the property. not just for the fine, which is still stuck at that 300 non-criminal disposition, but also we put in the ordinance, the cost of removal of the snow. So if the city has to send out city employees or contractors to clear the sidewalks, then there could be a lien placed. I don't think we've actually gotten to that point with any property yet since that ordinance was passed. So I don't know. And then I think there is an open question as to when that comes down the road, and we actually try to do it, and then someone sues and says, no, you can't do this, where are the courts gonna land on it? We passed it in the solicitor, it went through legal counsel, but we haven't tested it yet. So we'll see, it's a litigious society out there these days.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to join and approve Papers 24449 and 24451. Seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 74 and then negative motion passes. Whereas good government is based on the fund, I'm sorry, 24450 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Whereas good government is based on a foundation of openness, clarity, transparency, and accountability. And whereas the city council, taxpayers, and residents of the city of Medford are intended to be made aware whenever the city resolves claims against the city, the school department, any employee, any department, department head, or employee of the city, by payment regardless of whether those claims are resolved prior to litigation, after litigation, but before trial, by way of judgment or decision by a court or administrative or quasi-judicial body. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the mayor provide the council with a list of all such matters resolved during fiscal years 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, or 2025, and further, for each matter so resolved by payment, the mayor report to the council the name of each person, persons, or entity who made such claim and the amount paid to each such person, persons, or entity, if there is a legal reason that any such name should not be disclosed. such as in the case of a minor, a general description of the claim without identifying the person will suffice. And further, for each matter so resolved by payment, the mayor reports to the city council the source of the money or funding that was used to pay the claim by specifying which city or school account that money was from, whether it was paid by an insurer of the city or meant for public schools. Further, that the mayor reports to the council the names and addresses of any insurers with whom the city or school department maintained a policy of insurance whose coverage was the source of payments used to pay any such claim during fiscal years 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, or 2025, and further, for each policy of insurance listed by the mayor in answering the request set forth in the previous paragraph that the mayor state the annual premiums paid for each insurance policy listed in the applicable deductibles for each year during fiscal years 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, or 2025. And finally, that the mayor provide the city council with a breakdown of all amounts paid to outside council for representing the city of Medford or the Metro Public Schools or any department, department head or employee of the city of Medford for any claims made against the city as a municipality or the Metro Public Schools or any department, department head or employee of the city of Medford during fiscal years 2021 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, or 2025. This request includes payments made for any work performed on such claims to the compliment and page law firm, PB&R law firm, or to any other attorneys. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Do any other councilors have any questions? Seeing none, I would just note that the council has not approved any appropriations beyond the city budget for settlements. So settlements are being done within the appropriate amount of the city budget. Members of the public would like to speak. Yeah, if you leave it with, do you want us to review it now or do you want us to review it after the meeting? Okay, thanks. name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Steve, you're a minute over.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. That was two minutes over.
[Zac Bears]: On that note, again, We have not appropriated a single dollar above the budgeted appropriated amount for any settlements. So there's not a monopoly money approach here. Steve, I'm sorry, but you know, you can't. They've been paid for by appropriated funds. There's no additional funding, magic money, wasted money that's going to these things beyond what is approved in the city budget. The city council, Steve, I'm not going to get into a back and forth with you. The city council has to, the city council has to approve all appropriations. It's the law. The city council has not been asked to appropriate a single dollar beyond the budget for legal settlements. Well, I would, uh, good luck. Um, any questions on the resolution? Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli and Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng and then Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Any further comments from members of the council? I'll just say for one Councilor, the text of the resolution, I don't have a problem with it. It's answers that already exist and could be compiled into a report, I would guess. We've seen them in the Warren articles and we've seen them in reports previously, and I'd like to see them all in one place. And I think we've said so many times here, it'd be nice to see it all. No problem with the text of the resolution. but the narrative and the arguments being put forth underlying the resolution to try to tie it into some larger accusation, it's just spurious, it's just not real. The facts of the matter are this council has never been asked to appropriate additional money for settlements and legal services since I've been on this council, which includes all these fiscal years. I haven't seen a million dollar end of year transfer to the legal budget because of all these settlements. That has to happen legally. There's about six different checks and balances on it from the finance director to the state division of local services and the department of revenue to the mayor to this body. That if that was happening, they'd have to go through all these, there'd have to be such a massive conspiracy going all the way up to the state level, to the commissioner of revenue for that to be true. that it's not true. So I'm perfectly fine asking the questions. I'm gonna vote yes on it. But the idea that this fits some sort of larger narrative or example of something that's going on about malfeasance is just false. The number of people who would have to be involved in it intentionally is not possible. And I think as everyone knows here, it would involve people who strongly disagree with each other, somehow colluding. I disagree strongly with Mayor Lungo-Koehn on a number of substantive issues. I disagree with her on some of the management style in this building. I am not, you know, it's just not possible. So I have no problem asking the questions, but when we try to tie it into this larger thing, it's just plainly political. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: I think he was asking if there's anything that a public records request wouldn't provide that this would provide.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments, Councilor Levee?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. There would be a shot clock on a public records request. Technically, the mayor has no obligation to respond to our resolution. But that's the only difference I'm aware of. Any further comments by members of the council? Seeing none, we'll go to the public. Name and address for record at the podium. Raise your hand on Zoom. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted- You have to press the, just once.
[Zac Bears]: That should be good.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for record please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: The other lawsuit- I can't comment on that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, my point being, I think the comment was made, the words monopoly money were used. And the point was made that An appropriation to pay for a settlement must be approved by the council. You may be well right that something was approved by the school department or something didn't come to the council. We had that discussion in the past. The money for that would have to be. So that's what I'm saying here. There's been no appropriation requested or made by this, requested by the mayor or made by this council to pay for any sort of settlement sum. And I'm just going to leave it there, sir. You know, there's not, there's not monopoly money activity going on. It's just false.
[Zac Bears]: So you guys and I appreciate- That's not the point that's being made. No, of course it is. No, it's not. The point that I'm making is that these settlements were approved within the confines of the budget as approved by the council. No additional money was asked to be appropriated from the mayor to the council to pay for these settlements.
[Zac Bears]: And yes, the point being that this council has never been asked to make an appropriation for money beyond the scope of the city budget for settlements. That is a fact, and it is indisputable. I'm not talking in circles. You're saying there's all this extra money that we're being asked to spend on this.
[Zac Bears]: You didn't get the law, because you own the house. Oh, Steve, you're a big man, aren't you? No, I'm giggling about your obvious political attempt to malign the city. Steve, please stop. Steve, please stop. Please stop. We are paying attention. You're the one who doesn't know. Councilor Collins, you clearly have no clue. Councilor Collins. I mean, I'm not the one making it a goof show here. I'm just commenting, he's the one who's trying to, if we're gonna throw conspiracy theories around in the public forum, they will be combated by this chair. Thank you, Harry. Council Vice President Collins. Clown show.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we do. Thank you, sir. Please stop this.
[Zac Bears]: Are you asking for a paper?
[Zac Bears]: There's an amendment to include the budget to actuals for the law department, which of course has been in every city budget for all of those fiscal years. Is that amendment acceptable, councilor Scarpelli? We'd like to include as part of the report you're requesting that we get the budget to actuals, although we already have it. It's already in the Warren articles as well.
[Zac Bears]: Anything to help? With the point of order?
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there a motion on the floor? motion by councillor collins to approve as amended seconded by councillor saying and i just want to go you know we can talk about whatever losing the thread the thread is very clear i have no issue asking the administration as one councillor to compile information that already exists in this way so that it's easy to understand it This council has never appropriated a dollar beyond the city budget for settlements. And that narrative, I agree, not pushed by you, Councilor Scarpelli, but stated in this forum, is blatant misinformation and will be challenged. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I think that's part of it. Do you just know two minutes of comments, Kyle? I allow everyone to make their comments, but I'm just saying that what you just said, I agree with you a hundred percent. And my three terms on this council, we have been diligent about asking these questions when we have no formal authority to manage anyone. You're perfectly fine.
[Zac Bears]: Kyle, I am in control of this hall, and you're just interrupting me.
[Zac Bears]: Kyle, again, you interrupted me. I'd like to have a dialogue with you. But again, when people interrupt me and they don't allow me to have the dialogue, that's when it becomes out of control, and that's when we have these sessions. Now, could I make the point that I was going to make, and then I'll give the floor back to you? Go for it. The thing we all agree on behind this council and behind this rail is we'd like to see the figures presented in a certain way. And I think all of us have raised questions about the workplace culture and the management of the city in many different aspects, many different departments. That's something we all share. when that gets mixed into a political narrative about overrides and what happens in public meetings and not liking the outcomes of certain city council votes. And you just said it, we're understaffed, right? I support an override because we've been understaffed and I think we need more money to get out of understaffing. I don't think even if everything that was just said happened and every lawsuit that Mr. South just presented to us and everything else, if all that money happened and went out the door for settlements tomorrow, it still wouldn't be reliable recurring revenue to pay people in the long term to address the city's financial issues. So when that True thing that I'm saying, it's just statistical fact that the city budget gets lumped in with the settlements and gets politicized around revenue and overrides. That's when we have a disagreement. That's when people start yelling from the crowd and breaking the quorum. And that's when I lose patience with that narrative. So I agree with you. I have those questions. I share those concerns. I raised them. I raised them when I was sitting there. I try to raise them when I'm sitting here. I don't think anyone would say that I'm their best friend of this administration. I try to work with them collaboratively because that's what the job of government is. When the narratives start getting spun up in a certain way to politicize things and attack other things that aren't related to these fundamental factual questions, What are you gonna do?
[Zac Bears]: We're looking at a city charter change right now.
[Zac Bears]: We have been exercising our, how many resolutions have we passed on legal issues, George? 5, 6, 7, 8, 10. Steve was talking about all the meetings he's come and given the report.
[Zac Bears]: We'd love to do that.
[Zac Bears]: I've been down there, but I'm sorry I missed you. I'm there all the time. I don't know. Well, maybe you miss me, but I've been down to the building.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. But in any case, My point being, I don't disagree with what you're saying when it gets wrapped up in all this other stuff, that's the division. So I'm not wrapping it up in anything and I will continue not to. And I hope that we can have, I appreciate that. And I hope that we can continue to have meetings where we have a respectful dialogue like that. Thank you, instead of yelling from the crowd, thank you. On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins to approve the motion as amended, Any further discussion by members of the council or members of the public? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. 24-452 is mine, so Council Vice President Collins can take the chair. On the motion to take paper, 24-459, we have multiple appointments? Yeah. Can we take 2445, if we're gonna do that, 24447, 24448, and 24459? on the motion of Councilor Tseng to take those papers out of order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that your Honorable Body confirm the appointment of William O'Keefe, Republican of 18 Kilgore Avenue, to the Election Commission for the unexpired term of the existing vacancy to expire March 30, 2026, in accordance with Mass General Law, Chapter 51, Section 16A. William will be present in person or via Zoom for the meeting, and a copy of the appointment letter is enclosed. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Brandon Lugo, current mayor. And I just want to add, for folks who may not know about the law, the law requires partisan balance on our Elections Commission to ensure that all parties are represented. And Mr. O'Keefe here is filling the vacant term of the Republican seat that expires March 30th, 2026. Thank you for being here.
[Zac Bears]: Think about that, a Republican and a socialist. Yes. Any questions for Mr. O'Keefe? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please file the roll. Oh, we have a comment from Mr. Leona.
[Zac Bears]: As long as it wasn't during election season.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Assembly affirmative then negative, motion passes. 24-447, Medford Housing Authority Appointment, Michael Luongo. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend the honorable body in accordance with Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 121B, Section 5, confirm the reappointment of the following individual, effective July 1, 2024, for a five-year term through June 30, 2029, as a member cited in the reference statute, Michael Longo, member of 145 4th Street, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, to the Medford Housing Authority for a term of five years to expire on June 30, 2029, and a copy of the appointment letter is attached. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Breanna Lungo-Koehn mayor. Do we have Mr. Longo here on Zoom? Seeing none, and whereas this is a reappointment, I'll leave it up to my fellow councilors as to how they'd like to dispose of this paper. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by? Seconded by Council Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Affirmative, none negative. The motion passes. 24-448 Medford Housing Authority Appointment and Schiavone. President Bears and members of the Medford City Council, I hereby, I'm guessing it says, I hereby request and recommend that your honorable body in accordance with Mass General Law, Chapter 121B, Section 5, confirm the appointment of the following individual, effective August 13th, 2024, for a five-year term through March 1, 2029, as the representative of the Saltonstall Local Tenant Organization board members, as cited in the reference statute, and Chiavone, representative of the Saltonstall Local Tenant Association board members, 121 Riverside Avenue, number 206, Medford MA, 02155 to the Manford Housing Authority for a term of five years to expire, September 30th, 2029. A copy of the appointment letter is attached. Thank you for your kind attention in this matter. Sincerely, Brando Lugo, current mayor. We did receive an email from the administration that Ms. Schiavone was ill and unable to attend tonight, but there she was, the recommendation of the Tenants Association for the seat that goes to a public housing resident. Is there a motion? Council Vice President Collins. On the motion to approve of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. And then I get the motion passes. 24452 resolution. This is mine. Can you take that chair?
[Zac Bears]: President Bears. Thank you, President Collins. The resolution is relatively self-explanatory. There are five statewide questions and three local ballot questions on the ballot for November 5th, 2024. This is question four, certified by the Secretary of the Commonwealth, which would legalize certain, decriminalize, I should say, certain psychedelic substances that have been shown in clinical studies to help address mental health issues. The decriminalization of these has occurred in other places and it has helped, gone a long way to helping a lot of folks. I personally have spoken to a number of advocates, including veterans who would like to see these options provided to them where current other pharmaceutical practices items in medicines have not been helpful to address their mental health challenges. And again, this is a limited decriminalization of certain substances that have been seen in clinical studies and by the FDA to be really helpful in addressing serious mental health challenges. So I'm hopeful that the voters will approve in November, but also I'm hopeful that the council will endorse this question as well.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, thank you, Councilor Leming. Yeah, and I completely agree. And I am hopeful that if this question passes, that the legislature may look to make some technical adjustments after passage as they did. I didn't agree with all of them on the cannabis law and some of the other ballot questions that have passed to address some of your concerns. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: 24446 offered by Mayor Berena Longo-Curran, Brooks PTO Food Truck. Request for a food truck permit for the Brooks School Fall Festival Bondi Food Truck. Any discussion or motions?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Social Services Coordinator. Dear President Bears and City Councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that the City Council approve of the following amendment to the revised ordinances, Chapter 66, entitled Personnel, Article 2, entitled Reserved, the City's Classification and Compensation Plan, formerly included as Article 2, Section 6631 to 6640, by adopting the following language, the language of Capital 11, which shall be amended to replace the title of Community Social Worker with the following title, quote, Social Services Coordinator. Upon review by the Health Department, Office of Outreach and Prevention, the term social worker is very specific, It may require the city to hire a licensed social worker, limiting the pool of applicants. Upon their assessing other municipalities in similar positions, several have social services or human service coordinators for this role and fit within the current cap range in Medford. The primary responsibility of this role is to connect residents to services. As the cap would remain the same, there is no change in compensation budget. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. Any questions, comments, or motions? Vice President Collins. On the motion to approve for first reading by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Unless, well, technically there was a motion to approve. Is there any objection to taking all three readings tonight, or would we like to do a first reading?
[Zac Bears]: No objections to moving through all readings this evening. All right, on the motion to approve for all three readings by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Public participation, to participate outside of Zoom, please email ahertovisa.menford-ma.gov. If you'd like to participate, please come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom, and I'll recognize you. Name and address for the record, please, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: That was corrected. Sorry? I did correct that.
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate you making the comment. As an elected body, we Once you start going down that road, you go into the road, not just of advising people how to access information, but suggesting a course of action. And I don't believe it is the, that any, you know, the city is, if you call the elections office and you say, how do I do this? They'll tell you how to do it, but they're not going to say everyone really should do this. And that's, that's gets to the point of influencing people toward the direction. It's different than providing information.
[Zac Bears]: I'm talking about the other piece of it. Which one? A well-organized Republican write-in candidate could conceivably win the November general election. No. I'm just saying. I agree that on its face, it's not going to happen, right? But it's not the job.
[Zac Bears]: But to say the election is this day, and what happens in November doesn't matter, that gets down the road of suggesting a course of action. OK.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comment by members of the public in person at the podium or on Zoom? Just want to make sure, seeing no hands on Zoom, seeing no one at the podium, public participation is closed.
[Zac Bears]: 24421. On the motion by Vice President Collins to take paper 24421, the South Street Historic District Ordinance and approve for third reading, seconded by Councilor Sen. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Just to note, this is a motion to take from the table and approve, so we're technically not considering it. uh it yet um so there's no just there can be discussion about whether or not we want to take it off the table or not but we're not gonna happen would you like it to be taken off the table no no you don't yes would you like it to be voted on this evening yes all right that's that's what we can take for public participation that's the motion before us I'm guessing that having shepherded it to this point, you'd like us to vote on it. On the motion to take from the table and approve for third reading by Vice President Collins, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. The second from Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. That is taken from the table and approved for a third reading. It is done.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: You can go home now.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, that is approved for a third reading. The ordinance is now ordained. It will go to the mayor to be signed, and then will go to the clerk to be added to the book of ordinances.
[Zac Bears]: Could you just give name and address for the record?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for 23 years of service, Mr. Bader. I wish there were more of us here to clap for you. All right, any further motions? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I did that.
[Zac Bears]: I unscrewed it.
[Zac Bears]: Let's call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: No, this is to take it off the table and approve. This is approved for third reading.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, for the affirmative through negative, the motion passes and the ordinance is approved for third reading. Any further motions on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion adjourned by Vice President Collins, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears. Yes. Five in the affirmative, one absent, or one present, one no. The motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Collins. I think this is great. I really like the north end of the corridor. I think that's restoring the traditional pre-highway kind of arrangement of a walkable neighborhood that used to be a mostly residential commercial extension of Medford Square on the other side of the river, when it's kind of, you know, in the auto age was taken up by repair shops and various things that, you know, aren't necessarily what we want to prioritize. So I'm really interested to see that. My only really question, I guess I have two questions. One with the curb setbacks is the idea that the private owners would be accepting of the curb setbacks because they would be able to build higher. Is that essentially the idea there? Because I think it is, Sounded like you're talking about maybe 10 feet of going back 10 feet into the private lots and that sounds you know, I mean, I can just think. maybe a private owner would say, I don't want to do that. And I do, I guess I just wonder what like the application of that looks like. If we have some lots that want to move to redevelop and they do the curb setback and then you have another lot with a non-conforming structure that's right up on the lot line, like how is that going to work? That's my first question. And then I have a second comment.
[Zac Bears]: And I totally get the use case of it. I think it's great. I guess I'm saying in practice, have we seen where this has been implemented in other places that when development happens, the property owners seem to say this makes a lot of sense and we want to go back from the curb that much. And then, you know, do we see where, you know, different lots get developed at different times that there's kind of a, disjointedness at least for some amount of time until the buildings reflect the updated zoning where you have some of the corridor doesn't have that curb setback. I'm just wondering in your studies what you've seen with that.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Yeah, I appreciate that. I think I don't think you need to go deep diving into it. I was just kind of wondering what you'd seen in practice and it sounds like. You kind of set these standards, and over time, the development pattern happens along those lines. And that makes sense to me. I do think that southeast of Hancock Street, it's worth looking at, potentially. I mean, the street's just too wide. Mystic Ave, it shouldn't be as wide as it is. 95% of the time it's empty and it's just dangerous to cross. So that was kind of one thing I was thinking is And I don't know where MassDOT would land on this either I think that's a really tough piece of the puzzle since they control the street southeast of Hancock, but You know, you could go in a little bit. I think there my other comment is that I do think the commercial zone, the red zone on the northeast side, the east side of Mystic Ave. I don't know if it makes sense to treat that. This is the red kind of south of Mystic Valley Parkway. I think in a lot of senses the Hicks Avenue element of this is kind of baked in and that's going to end up being commercial and have auto-dedicated uses, etc. I think the east side could be treated more like we're treating the east side north of the Harvard and Route 16 Mystic Valley Parkway intersection. I think, obviously, there was the life science proposal that was withdrawn by combined properties, and then the 40B that was withdrawn by combined properties. And they've been having a lot of ideas and withdrawing a lot of ideas. But I wonder if we could at least, I wonder if there's a way to say you could do either or and that mix and match wouldn't necessarily make that part of it not cohesive. I just think limiting all of those lots to the commercial only versus at least giving the opportunity for something like having the mixed use extend all the way down on the east side between Mystic Ave and the highway. That's just a thought that I have, but I'm, you know, I'd be interested to hear what other people think about that and what the planning department thinks about that as well.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's helpful. And I think, I guess mostly I'm thinking of the area bounded by the highway, and then northwest of Fulbright Street, northeast of Mystic, kind of, if I could, I mean, if maybe if you go to the map, it's that area. kind of right, yeah, exactly. And maybe there's a way, given the purple that we have on the west side, to kind of try to make that a more cohesive link. I definitely see most of what you're saying on the west side of the street, on the Hicks Avenue side, I completely agree. That's kind of is what it is at this point.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Thank you. That's it.
[Zac Bears]: Just one question, and it might be for PDS and for NS Associates, but given this, when do we expect that we could see the maps and the written ordinance language for adoption for, I guess, for both of these? I guess I could ask that at the end.
[Zac Bears]: I'm good.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. My only thought, I really think that the big lots on the northeast side of the corridor don't have to be that big scale commercial. I could really see reintegrating and reconnecting that neighborhood and making it more walkable. I think you could have a lot of the uses, you know, you could have a Target and a gym and a liquor store under an apartment building. And just have a more, you know, right now it's just a giant parking lot, so I could really see that being And you can maintain the parking with podium parking if you really wanted to as well, or maintain some portion of it. Most of the time, most of it is empty. So that's just my one thought here. Other than that, I really think this is a thoughtful approach. And I think the kind of step backs into the neighborhoods make sense with small multi-dwelling, you know, it's a three-story height with the increased height really just fronting Salem Street. But I think that that's just my one thought. Could we try to encourage something kind of wholesale, really changing the dynamic of that section of the area, because right now it's basically just an asphalt desert most of the time.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah. And I know this is less a zoning thing and more of a just getting all parties on the same page thing. But I wonder if I know that he wants to move out of there if we could. There could really be, I think, benefits of being a transit hub in that area too, especially with the high-speed or high-frequency bus route from Malden Centre. So just a thought.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I think it is important to note, A, there's kind of two things that are at play here for me. One, once you're over two and a half, there's significantly less visual benefit of the difference between four and six. And I think we just need to factor that in. I think that's anecdotal. I think that's like a gut feeling that people are gonna feel. But if you actually look at the statistical analyses of like how people experience the world, it's not that different. I think the, and there's plenty of examples across this region of that, where you have fours and fives and sixes intermingled and it doesn't feel like when you're standing next to the six, it's so much bigger than when you're standing next to the four. I think the step backs are, less worrying than the setbacks. I think the setbacks are just really tough. I think all the setbacks and everything we've seen from all the studies that we've done are that the setbacks and the dimensional requirements in this community don't make sense with all the lot sizes in this community, and they really, really, really, really restrict what people can build. I think the step backs could make sense. I think we also have to factor in density bonuses here, where maybe it's 3 over 1, and then there's density bonuses for specific community benefits. Maybe those additional floors aren't full floors, but they're stepped back. I think those would be the ways I'd want to approach it, rather than just saying, this is a four-story corridor, and there's no opportunities here to do something else other than that. The other thing is again the building code at least from my understanding having had some conversations with. both people on the municipal side of these conversations and the developer sides of these conversations is when you have to move from wood-based construction to steel-based construction, it significantly increases your costs. And that has to generally happen after three stories, although we had some conversations about you can do podium bases and then build with three stories of wood on top of it, although I'm not sure what the new building code says about that. And I don't know if Scott, I'm talking out of turn, no change. Yeah. So I just think that to the point made about the setbacks, making this zoning in theory rather than zoning in practice, I also think that the height limits. If we limit it at four and they say, well, we're never going to build four, we're just going to build three anyway because we're going to build wood, then there's no point in zoning for four and we're not going to get what we want. So I think those are the kinds of conversations that we should think about. as we move through this. But yeah, I think the setbacks from the street are just really tough with the lot sizes.
[Zac Bears]: Right, and I just wonder, at Mystic Ave it makes a little more sense to me. Here, I just think you're gonna have you know, even if we're talking a 30 year time horizon, you're going to have properties that just don't want that. And then you're like, Oh, we have this great public space. And then it's a three foot sidewalk and then a great public space on the three foot sidewalk. And like, especially with these lot sizes, the number of lots and the varying uses, like, I don't know. It doesn't feel in my mind, I can't see the cohesion in the same way. And It's clear to me that on Mystic Ave, like once Paula mentioned, oh, everything has 20 feet of parking in front of it anyway on Mystic Ave, it's like, okay, so it's already open, private, you know, we could better utilize that space. Here there's stuff that's up to the, you know, there's a lot of structures that are built up to the lot line in front of a three or four foot sidewalk. And if those aren't gonna move, then you're not gonna, so that's just where my brain is on it around the, I guess my point is that even if we set the curve line in principle back because we want this cohesive vision, it might end up functioning like a setback anyway because you're not going to have the coherence all the way down the corridor. That's my fear.
[Zac Bears]: And the setbacks aren't that big either.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And not to, sorry, we're just going back and forth now. I just worry that, I agree in my mind, I'd like Salem Street's too narrow, like there's not enough public space to do everything we wanna do in the public way. I just think maybe people 100 years ago made that decision and we're stuck with it. So, That's just my concern there. But yeah, I think the step backs are great. I just wonder if this strategy can work here with trying to essentially expand the public way in some way.
[Zac Bears]: I'll second it.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I think what might be also helpful to bring for August is now that we kind of have, I think we have like a starting point for the corridors. Sounds like we're going to do Medford Square as a starting point for the square, the squares. We might want to pick a type of zone as a starting point for the neighborhoods. And then I think it would be really useful for us to sketch out our remaining, at least that one, you know, we were kind of, we're having the two meetings a month that we had talked about in the past, one meeting being more on these like geographic trends and then the other being kind of on the citywide policies. I think at this point, it might be good for us in August to at least have like a consideration of, what we'll be considering for the geographic for the remaining meetings, I think all the way out through next summer so that we can start saying to the public. We're going to be talking about language for the Salem street corridor. This is the meeting to come to for that mystic app. Maybe it's Salem and mystic at the same one Medford square, you know, in October, uh, single family or whatever, we're going to call it the residential district that, that neighborhood district in November, so that people can start to get attuned and we can start messaging to the public. here's when to show up for your neighborhood, and here's when we're going to have the public meeting on your neighborhood and get your input. And then I think the other thing that will be helpful, um, is prior to that meeting, um, for each area, being able to have a one page or two explain like, this is what these changes would mean and look like in your neighborhood. And I think that's just a good way for us to, um, have involved folks who want to be involved in the different geographic areas and the different, um, you know, changes in their neighborhoods, which I know there are many people who will want to, are interested in that, but also do it in a, like a, like procedurally constructive way that allows us to move forward on these items while also making it clear to residents, like this is when we're going to be talking about your area. And I don't think we could work. I don't think we'll get it a hundred percent, right. You know, that will meet every single meeting will be the one for that we've outlined, but I think we should at least, Try to do that and at least give like the order in which we're going to hit them. So maybe some sort of like light early draft of that for August that we could consider I think would be helpful. And I think that will make clear to the public for the rest of the process. Like a, we've heard a lot from a lot of people for a long time about the comp plan and the housing production plan and the climate plan and all these Medford square plans and the neighborhood conversations. And also the conversations that we just have with neighbors or we have on the campaign trail, like there's been a ton of public input already. Um, here's the containers for the, uh, where we're going to have that for especially those geographic, uh, neighborhood type questions.
[Zac Bears]: And I think it's more important for the geographic side as well of like, it might be worth us coming to me and saying, like, here are the core, like, Salem Street Corridor, Mystic Ave Corridor, High Street, Main Street, and Mystic Valley Parkway, maybe those are our five corridor, I don't know if those are, like, maybe we should talk about that. West Medford Square, South Medford Square, Haines Square, Medford Square, those are our squares. And then neighborhoods, you know, I think we could say, if you're currently in an SF one or SF two, we're going to be talking about a new type of district for those. If you're currently in and people, you know, that might not be as easy for people to know. Um, maybe we could put the neighborhood, the general neighborhood names of where those districts are as part of it. Um, but basically get down to like, here's where we think the districts are going to be. We think there's going to be 12 or so areas slash districts. Um, and then we can outline like when we're going to be meeting on them. I think it also applies on the other side of climate action, the housing, etc. But yeah, I'm not sure people will be as tuned in. I think that people are gonna be like, oh, you're changing my neighborhood. I want to be a part of that in some way. Some people will be.
[Zac Bears]: Um, and I think that's, that's super helpful to understand, um, that like Wellington and maybe Wellington and West Bedford square are later in the process. I mean, I think that for me, the one thing I want to, I think we need to prioritize, like, I agree that there may be needs for different, dimensional requirements based on like what neighborhoods look like, but I also think we need to avoid the idea of, you know, just because West Medford has had the zoning that it's had, and you can see it on some of the demographic and census stuff, that it gets to not have to have the setbacks where South Medford is going to have a five foot setback or no setback. Like, I think we need to, make sure that the places in the city that have had the most exclusionary zoning are pitching in. I'm not saying West Medford, you know, up by Tower Park, suddenly you can have a zero setback six foot office building or anything like that. But I think distributionally, like, I personally don't think other than maybe some construction stuff like that, we should be treating what is like an SF2 in the Heights and an SF1 in West Medford that differently in future zoning. And I also think that where the studies may inform like future specialization in the Wellington or West Medford areas that let's say that those studies aren't going to be complete by the time we're targeting completion of this project, that we at least need to bring those up to a comparable baseline with the other squares that we may be doing now and the other quarters that we may be doing now. and then allow the results of those studies to, in the future, then further adjust and change those areas. Because I don't think, like, let's say we do Medford Square, and we also are able to do Hayden Square as part of the Salem Street corridor, and maybe even South Medford Square, I think we'll end up down this road again, where people say, But West Medford Square is not bearing any of the burden of these changes. And the answer may be, well, that's because the study is not done yet, but I don't think that's what like people are going to experience or feel. So my inclination would be that if we end up doing a Haines Square and a Medford Square and maybe South Medford Square, that like we have to bring West Medford up to at least that baseline and then allow the study to adjust that going forward. So I just wanted to throw those two things out there, but I think in general, everything you said makes sense. And I think like on the city-wide side of the non-geographic district-based stuff, I think there's some studies out there, right, like the Nexus thing and some other stuff that will be coming up later. So maybe those are the later scheduled things on that track of the project.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just want to say that I think they're really awesome, and it's great to have the conversations and look at the maps. We had some folks in and out. I know the assessor, Koskin, I think Todd Blake was in and out, so some folks interested who aren't day-to-day part of the project.
[Zac Bears]: 14th regular meeting, July 23rd, 2024. It's called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming is going to be absent due to his military service.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Six present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. 24-442, offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you, Mr. President. Be it resolved that the City Council send our deepest condolences to the family of long-time Medford public school teacher, Robin Irving, on recent passing. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On emotional Councilors are probably seconded by Councilors. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Records, the records of the meeting June 25th, 2024 were passed to Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng, the records were passed to you. How did you find them? I found them in order and moved to approve. On the motion to approve it by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Second. Seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, 6 in the affirmative, 1 absent, the motion passes. Reports of committees, 24033 offered by Vice President Collins, Planning and Permanent Committee, June 25th, 2024, report to follow, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Cowdery and Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. 24006 offered by President Bears, Committee of the Whole, June 26, 2024 report to follow. We discussed the city council's governing agenda and making updates to that agenda to reflect the progress and number of items that have been passed in the first six months of the term and to reflect our plan for the upcoming 18 months of the term. Is there a motion to approve?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve the committee report, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, 16 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. 24354 and 24370 offered by Councilor Leming, Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, June 26, 2024, report to follow. By email, Councilor Leming sent me a report to read. The Council Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee edited and approved the June Council Newsletter, then discussed a guide to the practices and procedures of the City Council, and Councilor Tseng we'll be drafting a guide for residents to council practices and procedures to be discussed at a future committee meeting. Is there a motion to approve? On the motion to approve the resident service and public engagement committee report by councilor, vice-president Collins, seconded by councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Motions, orders, and resolutions 24441 offered by Councilor Scarpelli, whereas the Mayor and Medford City Council have repeatedly stated their goal to ensure the highest degree of transparency and accountability in all governmental matters, and whereas on June 28, 2024, Medford City Councilor George Scarpelli sent a letter to the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the State Auditor. And whereas the letter of Councilor Scott Polley raised various issues relating to the vote taken on significant municipal financial matters and the actions of the Medford City Council. And whereas, in light of the long-term absence of an appointed city solicitor in the city of Medford and the fact that the city's private legal counsel is a law firm hired by the mayor, and whereas the director of operations of the office of the state auditor responded to Councilor Scarpelli's letter, that the state auditor would, quote, examine the issues raised in the letter if the examination of these issues had the approval of a majority vote of the city council and the mayor, as required by state statute, and whereas the fairest and most objective fashion to resolve the issues raised in Councilor Scarpelli's letter is to have an outside agency address these issues, and determine the most appropriate way to address these issues. Now, therefore, we are resolved that the Medford City Council approve and authorize the Office of the State Auditor to examine the issues set forth in said letter. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: I move that Councilor Scarpelli to approve the resolution, seconded by. Second, I'll second it. You can. Second. Oh, we have a second. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: The Councilor moved to approve. I would, if Councilor has something to say, she can. She did second the motion. Okay, thank you. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: The city's finances are audited every year by the independent auditor. Council Vice President Collins. Council Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro, no? Councilor Callahan, then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli, then Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Again, again, again, I'll leave it at this.
[Zac Bears]: Number one, if you can share the correspondence with your fellow Councilors that you've been having, that would be helpful for us to understand the impact. I did, you got it. No, you didn't. You got the letter.
[Zac Bears]: So we haven't had a chance to review it before the meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Let's outline here. Let's outline here. Before I open my mouth, let me start off with number one, I'm going to lose inside a lot of votes in this chamber. In any case, what happened here, number one, there was a motion. Rule 21 was invoked on a Councilor Scarpelli paper. which moved it to another week. I believe Councilor Scaparro then withdrew the paper without any discussion. So when we talk about being stymied from discussion. Point of personal privilege.
[Zac Bears]: We were stymied from discussing that and it was withdrawn unilaterally. This council voted in an open and transparent session, and I have spoken to legal counsel about this, to suspend the rules. That happened at the first time. Councilor Scott probably asked many questions on the items. He was not stymied from asking those questions. They were discussed. The only thing that changed is that it couldn't have been postponed. That was the June 11th meeting. At the June 25th meeting, the rules were again suspended to avoid postponement to beyond the fiscal year deadline, at which point there couldn't have been action taken and the free cash would not have been able to be accessed, putting the city in financial peril. In any case, rules were suspended in an open and transparent session. There was a motion, there was an invocation. I ruled, there was a vote of the council. The council made a vote that was taken in an open session and then moved forward. At that point, council, at that point, Councilor Scarpellioli left the meeting. So when we talk about not having our voice heard, you have to be present in the room to ask the questions.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna keep talking.
[Zac Bears]: It's the reserve fund, actually.
[Zac Bears]: We can take a recess if we're going to continue to have anti-democratic disruptions of this public meeting. It's not, actually. As the chair, we need to have a respectful decorum. I'm moving a five minute recess. That was our first actually five-minute recess. We are not going to entertain further disruptions. Vice President Collins, you have the floor.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. You done, Vice President Collins? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not going to relitigate it, and I respect what you just said. There's some stuff that happened in summer 2020 that I felt similarly aggrieved by. I didn't write a letter about it. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Collins, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I wish that everyone would respect the councilor's right to speak.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comments by members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins, and then I think we should stop the back and forth.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just going to add some informative stuff for folks. If anyone would like to look at them, as Councilor Scarpelli noted, the meetings of June 11th and June 25th are available on YouTube and MedfordTV.org, along with, I think, the seven Committee of the Wholes on the budget that we had prior to those meetings. A lot of the things that folks are saying as questions, there are answers in those meetings, and I encourage you to watch them. There were a lot of answers presented over the most robust budget process that this council has undertaken in decades and the answers are there. There's also answers on the free cash questions and a memorandum attached to the June 25th letter and that were discussed at the June 25th meeting. So if you do have questions or concerns, there's a lot of information out there and we've made it a real point of this council to put as much information about the budget as possible, the situation that we're in, and quite frankly, the reason that If we had appropriated free cash now, the cliff that I talk about happening, if an override doesn't pass, is a cliff that happens next June. It just postpones the problem that has been very clear from all the budget meetings that we have. We have to call the question of, are we going to invest in the city? And that's the question that's been called. The free cash reserves, as noted, we are going to have a committee of the whole meeting to discuss the free cash plan outlined in the June 25th memo, or the memo from June 21st, that was on the June 25th agenda. And I really encourage people to, as Councilor Scarpelli said, watch those meetings, read the materials attached to those meetings. You will find very helpful and informative answers. With that, are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this resolution? Name and address for the record. You have three minutes and we'll alternate between the podium and Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Donna on zoom. Donna, they have an address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: All right, then we will go to Eileen on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. Eileen, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: All right, is there anyone in the chamber or on Zoom who would like to comment on this paper? Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Zoom. Jessica, can you hear me on Zoom? I'm going to ask for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone else in the room who would like to speak, please come to the podium, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes, state law requires all municipalities to have an annual audit, and it is an independent audit done by someone outside the city, and it is published when completed on the city website. Any further comment by members of the public? I'm gonna go to try Donna on Zoom again. Donna, I'm gonna try you again. I'm asking you to unmute. Hello, can you hear me?
[Zac Bears]: Please.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, please provide your name and address.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record please, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: That station's not a part of that.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think privatizing the parking was a good idea 10 years ago. I agree.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I think Councilor Scarpelli, anyone's beating on Councilor Scarpelli, nor do I think he would allow it. But I will say that I think everyone behind this rail believes that we are doing our best diligently to dig out of a very significant hole, and that has been put in place over many decades, and that we are working to address that. So that's what the proposals and the discussions we've had. That's what the updated budget process that we've been put in place is about. That's what the assessments of capital needs are about, and that is why we are putting more information out than ever before through a much longer process about the budget than has ever happened. So that was a priority of me since day one. We've made a lot of progress and we're going to continue doing the work.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the public? I'm going to go to people who haven't spoken first, and then I will come back to you. I don't see any hands on Zoom, so go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: It is not accurate to say that we did not know that there was money there. We did not know.
[Zac Bears]: The state, the Division of Local Services, part of the Department of Revenue. Yeah, they give money every year. No, they actually certify the city's free cash reserve balance every year. Right. And they certified that balance in June this year. So that is when we got the official certification.
[Zac Bears]: I would have to look, but it was probably probably between June 15th and 20th.
[Zac Bears]: No, it was after the budget.
[Zac Bears]: Well, and the financial team communicated to this council at budget meetings and committee of the whole, that there was going to be a free cash balance this year. similar to the previous few years for three major reasons. The use of federal funds, ARPA funding from the federal government, one-time funds, in the place where free cash reserves may have otherwise been used.
[Zac Bears]: That was a certification, yes. Right.
[Zac Bears]: It was a one-time surplus and is not reliably budgetable.
[Zac Bears]: We don't know how much is coming until it's certified. And the financial experts on our finance team have said that we should not expect to have free cash balances of $9 million going forward. It would be much more that what they have said in multiple meetings that we've had in this chamber is that we should expect, similar to what was under Mayor McGlynn and Mayor Burke, between $500,000 and $2 million free cash balance surpluses certified at the end of the year.
[Zac Bears]: Can we further comment by members of the public? I don't see any hands on Zoom, so we'll take you at the podium. Name and address for the record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to speak, either in person or on Zoom? Seeing no hands on Zoom, I will go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: The mayor's paper to give all non-union employees a raise was passed for first reading.
[Zac Bears]: I believe all non-union employees fall under it. So that would be you? I believe so.
[Zac Bears]: She did not. No, she recommended an alternative payment schedule that actually would have resulted in increased compensation, including retroactive pay. So if you could read the paper, it was a suggestion, and that suggestion was not accepted.
[Zac Bears]: Well, the text of the paper explicitly says she was not.
[Zac Bears]: I can't speak to what the council is going to do. I'm just one member. will you? I'm asking you. I can't make motions. I can't make motions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments by members of the public? Seeing none, on the motion of councilor Scarpelliglia, seconded by councilor Collins to approve paper 24441, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: It is possible to move to table.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to table is undebatable. Is there a second on the motion to table? Is there a second on the motion to table? Seeing no second, the motion to table is not accepted. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by Vice President Collins, paper 24441. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: I just unmuted him. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: No. The motion fails. 24440 offered by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves under Mass General Law Chapter 44, Section 53A, a donation in the amount of $500 donated by the Boston Foundation Corporation in honor of Pride Month for pride activities respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Pitt, please call the roll. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Public participation. To participate outside of Zoom, please email ahertobeasthatmentford-ma.gov. Is there anyone who would like to speak on public participation matters, either in person or on Zoom? Please come to the podium in person or raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, are there any motions on the floor? That is the agenda.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli, motion to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, thank you. Hi there. Just wanted to say, sorry, I was late. And I'm happy to review Committee of the Whole and Administration and Finance at whatever time is helpful. And just want to thank you, Madam Vice President, for taking on this meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Nope, I can't do it myself. So thank you all for Letting me go out of order. I appreciate it. The committee of the whole we had three items in there. We had the tree ordinances, the leaf blower ordinance and the food truck ordinance. We have met on, I believe on all of them. This term tree ordinance maybe we haven't quite met on yet. No, we're still trying to finalize exactly the three different ordinances that will compose that complete package. The leaf blower ordinance was passed so that is done that is part of the city ordinances. Food truck ordinance we met on and we had a kind of to go back to basics, given the understanding of law and what our authority is and the fact that our current food truck process really doesn't isn't grounded in any sort of legal authority. So, we did have a meeting earlier this term and we need to. come back now that we have that understanding and we did ask KP Law to develop some drafts that would address all of the different components of that. We also met extensively on this governing agenda in Committee of the Whole and we as well have a few issues that have gone to Committee of the Whole The next one being a review of a draft free cash plan, which we talked about at last night's meeting. So that will be exciting. But yeah, I think I will definitely work with you, Vice President Collins to update this section. And I do have a motion after I'm done presenting that I think will help us get an updated governing agenda out. I just also want to say it's been really great to listen to everybody talk about all of the work that's been happening committee this council has been so productive. So much work has been getting done. We are a working council with working meetings advancing dozens of important policies and ordinances that are really transformative. So just really grateful to everybody for that. In the administration and finance committee, we've made some real progress on some of our big issues. So we did finalize and finish the budget ordinance as well as held the FY 25 annual budget process under that new ordinance. Which led to the earliest passage of the budget, certainly that I can remember, as well as a, you know, months long process that really allowed us to get in on the ground floor and understand why the budget was being put together the way it was being put together. which I'm really excited to continue. We also had major progress around revenue generation with the three ballot questions approved by the council and with the approval of the mayor that are going on the ballot in November to raise revenue using an overrides and debt exclusions for the first time in the city's history under prop two and a half in the past 44 years. Those will address structural underfunding in our schools, invest millions in updating our high school schedule, investing in pay and benefits and increased staffing for educators, hire a permanent DPW street and sidewalk crew that can go out multiple times a week. Build a brand new fire headquarters and on Main Street. So I'm really excited about those initiatives that really start to address decades of underfunding and the deep needs of our community, both for ongoing operating expenses and our capital needs so I'm really encouraged by the efforts so far in collaboration that got us to this point and excited to work with everyone in Medford to get this passed in November and make sure that our city and our students and all of us have the resources that we need to invest in Medford's future. We have not yet received an update on the classification and compensation study. So there was money in the budget for that. I noticed in the city budget for fiscal 25. So I am hoping we can use either the next six months or the second year of the term to really dive deep and make sure that the compensation of our employees and the city reflects the work that they do and also reflects the competitive amounts needed to bring on the best and make sure that we don't lose talented staff to other communities that are paying more. In terms of the ordinances, as I noted, we have ordained the budget ordinance, the city's first ever budget ordinance, which is really exciting. We have also worked on and met on the commercial vacancy tax. I think from city staff perspective, there was an intent to maybe look at a different approach potentially around commercial vacancies. We'll continue those discussions. and look at all the tools that we can to make sure that we don't have vacant properties just sitting vacant for tax benefits or other situations where we see the impact both economically and visually and aesthetically on our community. Good landlord tax credit we have put that forward to implement that local option. We need to meet in the next six months, and I think we can keep our goal of December of getting this in place to as part of our comprehensive housing strategy. including things like rent stabilization and our zoning reforms to address the housing prices here in our community and support those who are doing the right thing and working to keep down rent increases and keep rent prices from skyrocketing. And then really everything else on here in terms of ordinances is something we're probably looking at in next year. So looking at community benefits agreements potentially that may need to be part of looking at our planning and permitting, zoning update project as well, the percent for art ordinance, paid family medical leave and extended illness leave bank. Those are some initiatives we will be looking at in the second year of the term. And then this fall, really excited to work on, per the budget ordinance, the financial review of the city's financial status and really making sure that we are engaged year-round with our finance department and the city administration to know where we're at. build out both our understanding of the current fiscal year, but begin deeply the process of long-term financial planning, revenue forecasting, and making that work which is happening in the finance department and the mayor's office more transparent. and more open to the public. I think we understand as a council what the city's financial position is, why we need overrides, why we need debt exclusions this time, this year to address budget issues, and working to get the technology and the staffing and the communications in place to further explained to the public, it may be in a clearer and more concise way. The city's long-term financial planning needs is definitely a priority of this council and of the administration and finance committee. So, yep, that committee has definitely done some exciting work and I'm really grateful to all the members of the committee and every member of this council for everything that they have been working on so far this term.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just wanted to motion to request that all committee chairs submit an update to the president and vice president on their committee, if there's any changes they'd like to see made to the governing agenda, any items that have been made, and for the president and vice president to also use the newsletters as a guidepost for updating the governing agenda and putting out an updated version of this document, including a short summary of to date, you know how many meetings we've had and what major accomplishments have been. Achieved by this council so far this term.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Council, 13th regular meeting, June 25th, 2024. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: 7 present, 9 absent, the meeting is called to order. Please rise and salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. 24429 offered by President Bears. Resolution celebrating Tom Lincoln's service as Brooks Estate President. Whereas Tom Lincoln has served as President of the Medford Brooks Estate Land Trust and Belt since its founding and Whereas Tom Lincoln led the efforts for the permanent preservation and conservation of the Medford Brooks estate, including both the historic buildings and open space. And whereas Tom Lincoln has volunteered tens of thousands of hours to Medford over the past 30 years, helping to draft legislation to establish M-BELT, run hundreds of meetings and events, recruit volunteers, raise funds, write grants, and be the public face of M-BELT to the Medford and regional community. And whereas after decades of service, Tom Lincoln recently stepped down as M-BELT president and has returned to the ranks of volunteers and citizen advocates, Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we congratulate Tom Lincoln on his storied career, preserving and restoring this essential city-owned property for future generations. Be it further resolved that we invite Mr. Lincoln to attend a future city council meeting to present him with a citation for his achievement. Be it further resolved that we invite the entire Medford community to attend the annual Brooks Estate picnic on Saturday, July 13th, 2024 from 12 p.m. to 3 p.m. at the Shepherd Brooks Manor to enjoy food, community and to celebrate Tom Lincoln's work to preserve and conserve the Medford Brooks estate for all time. Any comments by members of the council? Councilor Lemme.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comment? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And I have been lucky to serve now for five years as the City Council's representative on the MBELT board and work with Tom. And Tom's tenacity, his experiences, frustration with the pace of change are all something that I've come to know very well, and I am excited to thank him and congratulate him. He is going to keep working with the Brooks Estate and on the Brooks Estate, which I think is fantastic. We also have a new president, Carly Nesson, a Medford resident who stepped up to take on the role, and we're really excited to see what the next 30 years at the Brooks Estate looks like as we hope to finalize the master plan that was started 10 years ago. Much of it has been done in terms of the restoration of the building, and now it is time to build the access drive, finish the restoration, and make sure that everyone in every part of Medford can access the wonderful open space that is the Brooks Estate. So thank you all for your comments. I'm sure Tom appreciates them, and is there a motion? On the motion approved by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Collins. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven from the affirmative and the negative, the motion passes. 24-430, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we congratulate Sylvia de Placido on her retirement as assistant city clerk and thank her for her decades of public service to the city of Medford. Before I go to councilors, I do have a statement from the city clerk who could not be here tonight. He didn't know when he made plans that Sylvia would be retiring, so he's traveling, but he did want to say something. He said, inside room 103, I am the city clerk, but Sylvia is the boss. Capitalized. Even though I am a Springsteen fan of more than four decades, Sylvia is still the boss. She gave this city 32 years of selfless, dedicated service. If we count Dorothy Donahue's tenure as acting city clerk, and we should, then Sylvia has worked with four different city clerks, beginning with Joe McGonigal. She knows everything there is to know about the city clerk's office. She's our living encyclopedia for literally everything our office touches. Sylvia leads by example. Behind her seemingly gruff exterior is one of the kindest, funniest people we will ever know. Sylvia's patience and humor have pulled our entire team through some particularly challenging times. She has been an incredible teacher and mentor. She is completely unafraid to tell me what I need to know, when and how I need to know it, in words that are unequivocal and easy to comprehend. She is constitutionally incapable of sugarcoating anything. These are virtues. I will miss Sylvia's daily presence, but she's about to find out that she's only a phone call away. I'm thrilled for her as she embarks on her hard-earned, well-deserved retirement. My hope for her is nothing but happiness and more priceless time on the lake with Peter, Michael, Peter, Mark, and her beloved grandchildren. Well done, boss. Well done, and thank you. It bears repeating.
[Zac Bears]: Vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you and just I want to say congratulations and your service has been so appreciated. And my three terms, my first term, I didn't get to know as well because you were in here and many of us were not in this building during the pandemic, but you were here with the clerk's team processing birth certificates, marriages, death certificates. I mean, it is the basics of civic life that run through our clerk's office, nevermind council agendas, which may not be the basics, but there's something. since I've been vice president, now president, especially this past couple of years, I've spent a lot of time in the clerk's office and I've appreciated your humor, your welcoming me and pointing out that I may be sitting at the desk too much and shouldn't be an honorary member of the clerk's team as often, but always made me feel welcome and always tried to feed me candy and cookies, which, I appreciate and my doctor regrets. So it's been a real joy to spend time with you, Sylvia, and to get to know you and to see the end of many years of service, just the last tail end. I didn't get to see the first 26 years, but the last few have been a privilege. So congratulations. Enjoy the pontoon boat with the family. And I'll miss having you here too. When Adam wasn't here, it's been great to chair meetings with you. Thank you. Would anyone from the public like to speak on this item? You can come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. All right, Madam Clerk, please. Well, I need a motion first. Is there a motion?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. 24-431, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we congratulate Janice DePace on her retirement as principal clerk and thank her for her decades of public service to the city of Medford. Go to councilors. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Now I'm gonna read from the clerk about Janice. Janice does a little of everything in our office. She brought vast knowledge and experience with her when she came to City Hall from the schools, and she has transformed operations for our team. She has been a go-to resource for businesses, dog owners, restaurants, retail establishments, and anybody who needs information related to city government. Speaking of go-to resources, she's been a go-to resource for everybody at City Hall. She arrived at the clerk's office with a large network of teachers and former students, all of whom she remembers by name, when they arrive in Room 103 for copies of their birth certificates, to file their marriage intentions, and to renew their dog licenses. and all of whom remember her by name with kind words as well. Janice nails our customer service mission every single day, leading with kindness. She has passion for her job, combined with skills that can't be taught in any training session, along with a cosmetology license for anybody who might need a quick cut or trim. She enjoys our customers and her colleagues, and they enjoy her. She leaves City Hall with many years of service to our city and our residents. I'm grateful for the work that she's done and for her friendship, commitment, and humor. She has made our city a better place in which to live and work. I wish her the best on her next adventure. And I will just say to Janice that it has also been a privilege to serve and see her service in the clerk's office. Similarly to Sylvia, Janice has always made me feel welcome in the office. We always have a story to exchange or a bit of news to share. But I think especially something to say is, I think it's both a testament to their being great colleagues and friends, but also a loss at the same time that Janice and Sylvia get to go out together. They both get to retire luckily at the same time. And I think maybe neither of them could have imagined serving without the other in the office. So they both have dedicated so many years of service and are able to step out into their retirement or their next adventure. together, and I think that's a beautiful story. So, with that, is there a motion on the floor? On the motion by Councilor Tseng to approve, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none of the negative. The motion passes. 24-419 offered by Councilor Tseng. Resolution congratulating Donna Lasky on her retirement. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate Donna Lasky on her retirement from her long and storied career as a teacher in the Medford Public Schools and thank Mrs. Lasky for her years of service and care for Medford students. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I was neither a student or a parent or a colleague of Donna Lasky, but I was a student at Medford High with a Lasky child. And I just know the impact that that family has had at multiple generations on this community and the service they provided to the city and to our young people. So I'm incredibly grateful for Donna and for all of you for being in Medford and giving so much to our community. Any further comments? Would anyone from the public like to speak?
[Zac Bears]: All right. Two meetings for you guys, I guess. Congratulations. on the motion, oh, Director Hart.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, seven the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. 24435 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the City Council sends our deepest condolences to the family of former Medford Police Detective Lauren Kane on her recent passing. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli, vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Would anyone from the public like to speak on this item? Seeing none in the chamber and none on Zoom, please rise if you are able for a moment of silence. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. The records of the meeting, records, the records of the meeting of June 11th, 2024 were passed to Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli, how did you find the records? On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve the record, seconded by Vice President Collins. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, several affirmative, no, the negative, the motion passes and the records are approved. Reports of committees, 24-033 offered by Vice President Collins. Planning and permitting committee, June 12th, 2024. Report to follow, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by second, seconded by Councilor Ming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean affirmative none of the negative the motion passes refer to committee for further discussion to 4-4 to 2 offered by councillor Lazzaro Whereas the Massachusetts Department of Transportation is planning to make changes to a busy intersection in the heart of Medford Square Which will impact drivers cyclists and pedestrians for many years to come and whereas the Medford Bicycle Commission attended an informational meeting on and express concerns with the plan made thus far. Now, therefore, be it resolved that a representative from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, familiar with the plan, shall meet with the Medford City Council, a representative of the Medford Bicycle Commission, and a representative of the City of Medford Traffic and Transportation Department in committee to discuss said plans. Councilors, which committee would you like to refer us to?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilors are to refer to the Public Works and Facilities Committee seconded by Vice President Collins. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: If everyone could shut off their microphones, please. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have an affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to take papers 2-4-426, 2-4-418, 2-4, you said 4-2-3? Dash 4-2-3, 2-4-424, and 2-4-436. In that order, seconded by? Second. By Councilor Leming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. To take these, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. 24426, be it ordered that the city council enact a temporary moratorium on the issuance of licenses and permits for the purpose of operating a methadone clinic distribution facility in the city of Medford, and be it resolved, this moratorium remain in effect until a recommendation is received from the mayor's office proposing amendments to the zoning use chart to establish safe access to said facilities in the city of Medford, and be it further resolved, all meetings related to this topic be held in the hybrid fashion, accessible to both citizens, both in person and virtually. We do have an update. We received a letter from Habit Opco LLC today, June 25th, 2024. I'll read it now. Re Habit Opco LLC application for a special permit for Treatment Center 360 Salem Street, Medford, Massachusetts. Dear city councilors, we're writing on behalf of Habit Opco in connection with tonight's city council meeting. As you know, on April 16th, Habit Opco applied for a special permit. for a comprehensive treatment center, quote, CTC proposed for 360 Salem Street. Yesterday, we learned of a proposed resolution, 24-426, placed on the meeting agenda. The resolution urges the city council to impose a citywide moratorium on opioid treatment programs. We thought you should know that Habit Opco is withdrawing its special permit application for 360 Salem Street. It intends to search for a different location within Medford, We made this decision carefully after meeting with officials, reviewing public comments, and weighing relevant considerations. As you know, after filing its application, HABIT OPCO reached out to city staff and officials, including city councilors, to discuss any concerns. It is an open-door policy to discussing issues and considering feedback, and we intended to approach the special permit hearing with the same openness. We still feel we could address neighborhood concerns, but we recognize that there are times when a certain amount of adversity can undermine a cause. We take as genuine the comments of many Medford residents that they are not averse to the use or blind to the need, but have concerns with the proposed location. Habit Opco is committed to ensuring that victims of the opioid crises have access to life-saving medical care. Medication-assisted treatment is the best tool we have to combat that crisis that has claimed thousands of lives in Commonwealth. There's an urgent need for treatment facilities, yet locations are not easy to find. We look forward to working with the city to find an appropriate location for a CTC, and we thank all of those who have provided helpful insights over the last two months. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions. Douglas Troyer, attorney for Habit OpCo LLC. We also have Planning Director Hunt and legal representation here. And with that, I will turn over to Councilor Scarpelli. I will just remind everyone again, the application has been withdrawn. The council is not the special permit granting authority for this type of use. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I think we have noted here that all of the parties involved, whether it's the city council and city councilors or planning office or residents and community members who are engaged and even the petitioner, as they noted in their letter, they did want to hear the feedback of the community. They did want to engage in good faith. They did want to do this the right way. So that is where we are. We have an intent and an approach, I think, to work together to find a site, if they want to continue looking in Medford, that meets community needs. And I think that is what we ask of everyone who petitions for a special permit of any kind. I also want to note that the zoning we have now does need to be updated. We're working through that process. This was a special permit process, so there still would have been a process to require. They couldn't just come in and do it in a residential area, which I think is an important point to note. We do have the planning director and council present. I do want to invite Director Hunt up. to speak, and then I'm hoping we can refer this to the committee to come up with something. I know that we got some legal advice around the specific structure of something like this, how it would need to be structured. People with substance use disorders are a protected class, so we have to be very careful in the legal construction of anything around this. Right now, if we were to institute something with the current zoning, we would ban any medical office from opening in the city of Medford whatsoever. So we really need to go through the diligent process to get this right and follow the law. So that's what we will do. And with that, I will go to the Director of Planning, Development and Sustainability, Alicia Hunt.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to confirm what you just said for simplicity's sake. The application has been withdrawn. There's currently no application to consider this from this company anywhere in the city. It will be withdrawn at tomorrow night's City Community Development Board meeting, Thursday's Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. And as discussed in the letter and as discussed by Councilor Scarpelli, the intent of all parties is to have more discussions about as a city developing and looking at this in the zoning context and from the applicant working in good faith with the city and community members to find a site if they want to continue in Medford, that is not in a residential area.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there a motion on the floor? I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro, but was there a motion to refer? I couldn't quite tell.
[Zac Bears]: I did invite the director and council up for specific questions to them. So I will, we'll do that and then we'll go around and then we'll be done. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: This is a question for Council. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: We're not going to do this tonight, y'all, so... All right, would you, we can stop right now if we want. Please don't disrupt the public meeting. Please don't disrupt the public meeting. We have a good resolution here. And if you want, we can shut this down right now.
[Zac Bears]: We have a motion to refer to planning and permitting committee. Is there any further questions or comment for council or for the planning director? I don't think so.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further questions for council, for members of the council? On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to refer to Planning Committee and Permanent Committee for further discussions around zoning, seconded by Vice President Collins. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, six affirmative, one negative, the motion passes. 24418, recommendation for Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board of Trustees. June 10th, 2024 by electronic delivery regarding recommendation for the Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board of Trustees. I respect the request and recommend the honorable body approve the following candidates to serve on the Board of Trustees for the Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we just moved through the item and it has been disposed of. I'm happy to take it up under public participation or public participation item from Charles Rodriguez.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna keep reading. In accordance with the MedFed Affordable Housing Trust Fund Ordinance, the Board of Trustees shall be appointed by the Mayor. Upon approval from the City Council, the Board must consist of seven members, including the Mayor or their designee. The Ordinance stipulates that the initial appointment of Trustees must be staggered, with three members serving a one-year term and the remaining four serving a two-year term. Subsequent appointments and reappointments except for the Mayor's seat will be for two-year periods. Below are the six recommended candidates with their initial staggered terms. One, Kayla Lesson, two-year term. Two, Roberta Cameron, two-year term. Three, Lisa Ann Davidson, two-year term. Four, Carrie Weaver, one-year term. Five, Penelope Taylor, one-year term. Six, Lisa Son, one-year term. Furthermore, information on each candidate is enclosed to support the candidate recommendation submission. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. I would invite the Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability Director or the Chief of Staff to present the nominees. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Welcome, Aditi.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Sure. I mean, I would have. Please don't disrupt the public meeting we have business to attend to. If a councilor wished to make a... On a motion for councilor to recess for five minutes, seconded by Councilor Tseng? President Bears?, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you on the recess.
[Zac Bears]: The motion was disposed of per the council rules. There was a vote that was taken and disposed of it. The agenda, I can't call people out of order, that needs to be a vote of the council. Councilor Scott probably could have proposed that, there could have been a second, we could have had a vote on it. I can't just discretionarily move items around, that is not my role. The agenda's written the way it's written, public participation's at the end of the meeting. There was a vote, there was a motion and a vote. Once an item is disposed of with a motion and a vote, it is concluded. It's just the rules, thank you. I'm sorry, I have to follow the rules. I have to follow the rules. I have to follow the rules. All right, let's keep yelling personal attacks. I don't think that'll get us anywhere. If this is how it's gonna go, I'm just following the rules.
[Zac Bears]: You should, you don't have to do a vote, but yeah, 842, yeah. The Office of Plenary Development and Sustainability has received and reviewed applications for the Board of Trustees and has met applicants to understand their backgrounds and interests in affordable housing. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund will convene once a month on Wednesday with its first meeting to be scheduled in July 2024. The specific date for monthly meetings will be determined after consultation with the trustees. The trust may establish a subcommittee or a working group that will meet more frequently to develop an action plan for the trust. Below are the six recommended candidates with their initial staggered terms. Kayla Lesson, two year term. Kayla Lesson is a resident of South Medford and works as an asset manager with legal background. Kayla has 13 years of experience working for a real estate company that owns mixed income apartment buildings in the greater Boston area. Kayla has worked with Mass Housing, HUD, and HUD regulators to manage regulatory compliance. She is well-versed in affordable housing policies and programs initiated by Mass Housing, the Executive Offices of Housing and Livable Communities, and Mass Development. Roberta Cameron is the Community Preservation Act Manager with the City of Somerville and serves as Chairperson on the Medford Community Preservation Committee. As a former planning consultant, Roberta has 25 years experience working with Massachusetts cities and towns. Her areas of expertise include affordable housing, economic development, land use, public facilities, and impact assessment. She's also established and advised affordable housing trusts and community preservation committees across the region. Lisa Ann Davidson is a resident and deputy housing director with the city of Somerville. In the past, Lisa has served as a trustee on the Somerville Affordable Housing Trust Fund and as a director of the Somerville Homeless Coalition. She's created five permanent support housing programs and has worked with the unhoused population for nearly 20 years. Carrie Weaver resides in Glenwood and works as a child care professional. She is passionate about affordable housing and currently lives in an affordable home. Carrie is eager to share her lived experience in affordable homes. She has also assisted the Medford Housing Authority in administering the family self-sufficiency program for voucher holders. Lisa's son works as an architectural designer specializing in sustainability and affordable housing. She holds a dual master's degree in architecture and urban planning with a focus on ecological design. Lisa has worked with local housing authorities to retrofit affordable housing in order to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. She also has experience reviewing development projects and has volunteered at Homeless Outreach and Habitat for Humanity. Penelope Taylor works at the City of Somerville's Office of Housing Stability as a Program Development Policy and Outreach Coordinator. She advocates for low-income clients with housing needs and assesses the effectiveness of housing programs. She serves on the Somerville Residential Anti-Displacement Task Force, researching housing policy suggestions for the city, and also served on the Union Square Neighborhood Council Board for three terms, focusing on affordable housing, and all six of the appointees are Medford residents. With that, I'll go to Aditi. If there's anything else you'd like to present, and then we can go to members of the council for any questions before we vote on the appointments.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Do members of the council have any questions? Councilor Leming, Vice President Collins, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion or questions from members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: Seeing none, there's a motion by Vice President Collins to approve the appointments of Kayla Lessin, Roberta Cameron, Lisa Ann Davidson, Carrie Weaver, Lisa Sun, and Penelope Taylor to the Affordable Housing Trust, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, six present, one absent. The appointments are confirmed.
[Zac Bears]: 24423, if I don't hear a motion. 24423, recommendation for Community Preservation Committee appointment request. Dear President Grayson, members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend your Honorable Bobby confirm the appointment of Ada Gunning of 40 Magoon Avenue to the Community Preservation Committee for a term of three years, effective July 1, 2024. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. May it be an illegal current. And we have Manager DuPont of the Community Preservation Committee.
[Zac Bears]: We have Ada here. Hi everyone. I've already said it, name and address for the record, and your time is yours.
[Zac Bears]: Fantastic. Any questions? Councilor Leming, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes. Six. The motion is approved.
[Zac Bears]: While we're on the suspension, Councilor Scarpelli is moved to take public participation. Thank you. Hello, participation. We have Cheryl Rodriguez. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You have 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and just, I can answer some of your question if you want, in terms of procedurally next steps. So the council voted on the paper that had been proposed, and we'll be looking at the zoning element of this, which is within our purview, and what the state law allows us to do, what the legal cases allow us to do. In terms of, in general, prevention, health, addressing substance use disorder, and the opioid crisis, we do have the Office of Prevention and Outreach, which has done some really great work on that in this city. and they convened the Preserving Mental and Behavioral Health Commission, which we established three or so years ago. In terms of the rights of providers, right, I get the four R's, and I think it's important for the city to engage in looking at that, but the provider themselves as a corporate entity, non-profit or for-profit, they do have a right to petition for zoning or to want to open a business or something like that. So the city can't control them from coming and asking. And then we have to follow the laws of the public process as laid out. So I think that's why you found, you know, that there's all this, you know, there was a special permit of the zoning board for this use in this district. So that's the process that outlines there, what has to happen there, engaging those other bodies, you know, in a more holistic look at mental health and behavioral health. That is the work of the Office of Prevention and Outreach, but they don't actually have approval or denial authority over special permits. So that's why there's some mismatch there and why certain groups are engaged in certain elements of the process. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I would just note that the City Council does not have the authority or control over pretty much anything that was just stated. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Zoom. Marie Izzo, name and address for the record, please. If someone could unmute Marie, for some reason I'm not a co-host right now.
[Zac Bears]: All right, thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Name is Zoom, Jess H. And I will note that if there is a reapplication, it would have to follow the public process and there would be a special permit process with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Jess, you have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: The Office of Prevention and Outreach does work on this and the health department. And in terms of the application, the city did not solicit this private business to apply for this. They decided to apply for it.
[Zac Bears]: It's based on the zoning. If they wanted to go back to the site, if they were, for example, to reapply, the zoning board of appeals would approve a special permit for this use in that district.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Podium name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: You have 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: I would note, once again, a vote was taken, and per the council rules, once a vote is taken and disposed with, that concludes the discussion on the paper. So, thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You have about 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: I was following the votes. Thank you. refer you to the council rules once again. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I haven't said that once, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Jones, I would just note, Mr. Jones, the application was withdrawn. I understand. So I'm just going to speak now. Thank you. So the application was withdrawn. The council's not the special permit granting authority. It's not our role under the state chapter 40 a zoning law for us to insert ourselves in the special permit process of another special permit granting authority. And I think you heard from all of the city staff involved from many Councilors that we wanted and from the proponent from everyone here. And people have emailed me. If you got an email back from me, I think you'll know what I said in the email back. I said, I don't think this is the right place, and I don't think this is the right process. The right location, or the right place as being in Medford? The right location. Most of the responses have said, We believe that this has a place in the spectrum of treatment. We'd like to see it in a commercial industrial district. I think you would find that basically everyone who acted and was involved in this process from the city side, whether that's the planning office, representatives from the health department, members of the city council, we worked to play our role as best as we could to have the public comment heard. And the result was that the applicant said, we heard this isn't gonna work here. and we're withdrawing. So the result is it's not coming, the application is not applied, and now we wanna come and work with all parties involved to put this in a place where people feel comfortable that it should be here. So that was what happened, that was the result, and I think that's being lost a little bit in this discussion. So I just wanted to state that when we talk about what roles different people played in the process here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, I appreciate the comment. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Carrie. Any further public comment on the matter? Seeing no hands on Zoom and no one at the line in the chambers of the podium, It's public participation so can make motions. I mean, if you want to.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thank you. I'm going to address the record, please, in three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Please direct your comments to the chair.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I'm still on my three minutes. Yeah, I'm still on the three minutes. Hey, Zach, I'm still on my three minutes. Yeah, you can be done now. You can be done here.
[Zac Bears]: You have no clue why this person isn't here. You have no idea what, Steve, can we have a conversation? Okay, can you stop interrupting me? Please stop interrupting me. I want to note to you that you have no idea why this Councilor is not present, and maybe they had a major personal issue in their life today and are still showing up at this meeting, and I'd like you to give them a little grace.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Steve. We'll see about that. All right, Steve. Please direct your comments to the chair and please avoid your personal diatribes. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: In cities like- That's not true, we do have a- Oh, you do? We have a social team, yeah, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I would once again note that given the Chapter 48 zoning process and that the Zoning Board of Appeals is a special permit-granting authority, it is generally not recommended for the Council to insert politics into situations or to be serving as political actors in permitting processes because it opens the cities up to liability and lawsuit. Would you like to speak? Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. And I just want to say for my record, since we're throwing around the shame on thing, the people in the room laughing at that comment, I'm disappointed in you. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. All right, 24-424, recommendation for the License Commission. Reappointment requests. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respect the request and recommend that your honorable body, in accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 138, sections four and five, approve the reappointments of Alan Martirana, registered Republican, 25 Blakely Road, Medford, MA, 02155, and Ben O'Sullivan Pierce, registered Democrat, 10 Tyrell Road, Medford, MA, 02155, to the License Commission for a term of six years each. To expire June 1, 2030, both Alan and Ben will be present via Zoom. Copies of their resumes and appointments letters are attached. Already serving, Robert Delafano, registered unenrolled independent, 65 Hume Avenue, Medford MA 02155. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. We may, I see Ben, and I saw Alan earlier. We may have lost him due to the late hour. Madam Chief of Staff, do you wanna share anything about these applicants? And if I am correct, I just wanted to, and you can correct me, state law requires the License Commission to have partisan balance because of probably 100 years ago, we're only given licenses to people from our own party, something like that.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. If there's anything you want to add about the applicants, it looks like they are for reappointment.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I do see Ben O'Sullivan Pierce. Ben, if there's anything you'd like to say at this time, feel free to raise your hand or wave at me and I can unmute you. Seeing he's all set. Any questions from members of the council on these reappointments to the License Commission? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 7 the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. And the License Commission appointees are reappointed. The final paper under suspension currently 24436, Medford Housing Authority appointment. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that Your Honorable Body, in accordance with Mass General Law, Chapter 121B, Section 5, confirm the appointment of the following individual for a five-year term through March 1st, 2029, as the quote, representative of organized labor, unquote, as cited in the reference statute, James R. Lister, representative of organized labor, 193 Winthrop Street, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155. A copy of the appointment letter is attached. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. I saw Jim earlier. I'm looking around to see if he's here now. Jim, if you're present, raise your hand or wave and I'll recognize you, but I'll go to the chief of staff.
[Zac Bears]: Great. As this is a motion for reappointment, is there anyone on the council has a question or any question or any other comment on this appointment? Seeing none, is there a motion? Vice President Kong. on the motion of Vice President Collins to approve. Seconded by? Second. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 6 in the affirmative, 1 in the negative. The motion passes. Is there a motion to revert to the regular order of business? So the motion, well, technically we've gone through the suspension motion, so I think we're just reverting back to the regular order of business. 24358, petition for a special permit for hours, Great American Beer Hall, LLC. Legal notice, Medford City Clerk's Office, notice of a public hearing, the Medford City Council will hold the public hearing in the Howard F. Alden Chambers on the second floor of Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford MA, and via Zoom on Tuesday, June 25th, 2024, at seven o'clock p.m., a link to be posted no later than Friday, June 21st, 2024, on a petition for a special permit for hours filed by the Great American Beer Hall, LLC, the petitioner seeks a special permit for hours Monday through Sunday. 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. The petition and site plans for this project may be viewed in the office of the city clerk, room 103, Medford City Hall, Medford MA. The site plans can also be reviewed on the city's website at www.medfordma.org slash board slash community dash development dash board by clicking on current CD board filings. Call 781-393-2435 for any accommodations aides. The city of Medford is an EEO-AA-504 employer by order of the city council, Adam Hurtubise, city clerk. So we do have here a petition for a special permit for ours, Great American Beer Hall. Previously, we granted a special, sorry, a conditional convictional license, conditional on the occupancy permit and the issuance of all necessary approvals by the relevant department heads. I do see Brian Zartha here on Zoom. Thanks for bearing with us, Brian. I'm going to have us hear from the petitioner as to their desire for the special permit hours 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. and then I will open the public hearing. Brian, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Brian. Do we have any questions from members of the council? Seeing none, I will open the public hearing to people in favor, opposed, or otherwise having questions or comments on the project. Public hearing is open. Brian, are you in favor of the project?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Is there anyone else in favor or otherwise commenting on the project in this public hearing? Please come to the podium, share your comment, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. Any further comments in this public hearing? I have Gordon Wallace. Gordon, please give name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Great, any further comments in this public hearing? Chris, I know you're here in person, but I do see your hand up on Zoom, is that for this? Okay, just wanted to check. Comment or? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. With that, I will declare the public hearing closed. Any motions on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, and that's a 30, 60, 90 day review upon opening. On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli to approve the special permit with a 30 and 60, 90 day review upon opening, seconded by Councilor Leming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have an affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. 24420 petition for a common victor's license, raising cane restaurant on file, business certificate 2023 number 106, petition received, letter of compliance received, state tax ID received, workers' compensation received, treasure collector pending final approval, building department pending final approval, fire department pending final approval, police traffic impact pending final approval, and health department pending final approval. Before I recognize the council for the petitioner, I just want to note that we have recently done, I think, a relatively similar conditional common victual license pending those approvals on these issuance of an occupancy permit. So I just wanted to put out that context. With that, I will turn over to hear from our petitioner, Kathy Desmond, from representing Rice and Gates.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any questions for the petitioner? Seeing none, I'm going to open the public hearing. Public hearing is open to people in favor, in opposition, or otherwise would like to comment on this project. Sorry, Sylvia. Public hearing is open.
[Zac Bears]: Anyone else on Zoom or in the chamber who would like to comment on this Common Vixer's license request? Seeing no one in the chamber and no hands on Zoom, I declare the public hearing closed. Is there a motion on the floor? Motion to approve. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve pending the six-day public comment period and conditionally on the approvals and the occupancy permit. On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes. Negative. The motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Kathy.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. I saw Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to take communications from the mayor and suspend rule 21. Second. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Yes. Communications from the mayor and suspend 21. By Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. 24417 offered by Mayor Brienna Lungo-Koehn. Community Preservation Committee Annual Budget Request, Fiscal Year 2025. I respect the request and recommend that your honorable body approve on the recommendation of the Community Preservation Committee, the Community Preservation Fund revenues in the amount of $2,068,920. In addition, I respect the request that your honorable body approve on the recommendation of the Community Preservation Committee, the Community Preservation Fund expenditures in the amount of $2,068,920 as follows, open space, 206,892, community housing, $310,338. Historic Preservation, $206,892. Administration, $103,446. General Remainder, $1,241,352. Total $2,068,920. Furthermore, the CBC is included in closing its updated annual plan by reference as documentation to support the budget submission. CPE Manager, Theresa DuPont, and CBC Chairperson, Roberta Cameron, will be in attendance to address any questions. Thank you for your consideration. respectfully submitted Breanna Lungo-Koehn Mayor. And before I turn it over to you. manager Dupont, I just wanted to clarify my understanding that we are approving kind of the overall allocation, but then you will go through your standard project to approve these specific projects. And, you know, there will at least be 207 or so thousand on open space spent, 207,000 historical reservation, 310,000 or so on housing, and then the rest would be distributed amongst those categories. Is that correct?
[Zac Bears]: Great. All right. Then with that, I will turn it over to you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any questions regarding the base allocation for CPC funds for fiscal 25. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any council member?
[Zac Bears]: Well, if you can get us a color printer in the clerk's office, that would be a start.
[Zac Bears]: No, not your job. That was a message for the ether and for others in the room like our chief of staff and our finance director. I just wanted to note one other thing about this. I believe we can find this copy of this plan on the CPC page on the city website or on the Preserve Medford page or both.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, it wasn't my, I didn't know if it was or wasn't.
[Zac Bears]: It's also available, I believe in color on the city council's agenda and meeting minutes portal. If you were to go to the agenda, the item files for 24417, you can find a copy of that PDF there as well. Chair Cameron.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And congratulations, trustee Cameron. Thank you for volunteering for another role.
[Zac Bears]: Vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I would motion Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. And I think Sylvia is going to win the award for roll call slips tonight.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70% negative. Thank you very much and this is approved.
[Zac Bears]: 24-421, Ordinance Creating a South Street Historic District. I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body adopt the enclosed ordinance proposed by the Medford Historic District Commission in accordance with the Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 40C, Section 3, Creating a South Street Historic District. A map of the South Street Historic District dated November 9, 2023 is also enclosed. In accordance with the requirements of establishing a historic district, One, an investigation and report was made by the Medford Historic District Commission with the support of a consultant, Skelly Preservation Services, and transmitted to the Community Development Board and the Massachusetts Historical Commission for their respective consideration and recommendations. Both entities have considered and recommend approval of the proposed South Street Historic District, encloses a copy of the Community Development Board recommendation to approve the creation of the South Street Local Historic District, and the Massachusetts Historical Commission discussed the proposed district at their September 13, 2023 meeting, for which they ultimately concluded and incorporated into their minutes that the quote, Massachusetts Historical Commission encourages the City of Medford to establish the South Street Local Historic District. The Medford Historic District Commission held a public hearing on February 8th, 2024, and notices were mailed in accordance to the statute to ordiners as they appear on the real estate tax list. And a final report dated February 20th, 2024, with recommendations by the Medford Historic District Commission is also enclosed. The above ordinance has been reviewed by Attorney Robin Stein at KP Law PC, and the recommended changes have been incorporated. Further, the sufficiency of the vote required by the council would be a two-thirds majority. Medford Historic District Commission Chairperson Christopher Bader will be in attendance to present this proposed ordinance to the council and answer any questions from the council. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Brandon Lingo, current mayor. Chris, thank you for being here. I welcome you to the podium. I think I saw some other members of the commission here for a while. Has anyone stuck it out? Thank you both for sticking it out. You're welcome to join at the podium if you'd like, and we're happy to hear the presentation. If you'd like, I'm also happy to read the proposed changes to the ordinance at some point. You just let me know.
[Zac Bears]: Give me one moment. Actually, give me two moments.
[Zac Bears]: Then I think you need to click play from start. If you scroll up a little bit. You might have to scroll back. If you might have to go down, bring your cursor down and then scroll up. I don't know why it's not showing up. Justin, Matt. We're sending Gen Z. We're sending Gen Z out. Although technically, apparently millennials are better at computers. I don't know. all that time on the smartphones.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Justin.
[Zac Bears]: Last slide, please.
[Zac Bears]: And for those who have not seen Chris zoom in to a public meeting, Chris lives in a historic home where people of my height may occasionally knock their heads on a doorframe.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, George Washington did not choose to cite his headquarters in that home. A joke for me and Larry and Chris. Council, any more questions? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments from members of the Council? I for one, South Street is just one of our most beautiful historic neighborhoods and I've been in the 21 Toro house and I remember the deep concerns with grandfather's house and yeah I mean this is one that just makes sense to me out of the gate. I know a couple years ago we were talking about the one parcel on foster court and I voted for it, didn't pass. But this is contiguous. It's so well evidenced, deeply supported. The process has been so long. I personally would be a strong proponent of approving it for first reading tonight myself. But, you know, I just think this is This is exactly the place we need to go and I mean we see the pit right now on on South Street, next to that 5054. Yeah. And you know, again, I'm a huge proponent of building more housing. But, and I think you brought up the grandfather's house case as well. a little bit of a difference in outward appearance would have made a huge difference in the impact of that new construction on that property. 54 has already gone through, so that as well will not have, but I mean, I think they made some decent considerations and historical commission has had some leverage with the preferably preserved, but this is a neighborhood where, you know, I don't think we got enough necessarily and a neighborhood that really needs it because it is just a major historic quarter with some historic buildings that still have have not been switched to vinyl siding and have not had their main features and historic features just completely stripped and ripped away. So I really see this neighborhood as 100% and this district specifically as constructed as a place to move ahead personally. So thank you for your work on it.
[Zac Bears]: Currently, any further comments from members of the council? We have a motion on the floor from Vice President Collins to refer to planning and permitting. Is there a second on that motion? Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Is there any comments by members of the public on this item? Raise your hands on Zoom or come to the podium and share. So I'm gonna go first to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You have about 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate your comment. Thank you. I have another comment from Deborah Beard Bader. Damon, address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You have 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment from members of the public? Seeing none, I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the Council or the public? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: We do have a motion on the floor. We can't have a motion. So we would have to vote that motion or without that motion. And this is an ordinance. I'll just read it really quickly. This would amend sections 4851 and 4852 of the municipal code to include the words fixes what adds to the list and a South Street historic district. twice in section 4851 and once in section 4852, and it also would set forth that the South Street Historic District is and shall hereby be created with the boundaries of the said South Street Historic District being as shown on the map entitled South Street Historic District prepared by the City of Medford Historic District Commission dated November 9th, 2023, a copy of which is on file with the city clerk and is to be recorded at the Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds. So that is the vote. Councilor Lazzaro, do you have a further comment?
[Zac Bears]: If you turn your microphone, if these front two microphones are technically in front of the speakers, and I think the speakers are very loud tonight. It's just where I'm sitting.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. We have the motion of Councilor Collins to refer to planning and permitting, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Does that motion stand? Motion stands. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: It's a motion to approve for first reading.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve the ordinance creating a South Street Historic District for first reading by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by?
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Yes. No, no, no, no, no, no, sorry. This is still 4-2-1. Yeah, we just, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, five in the affirmative, two in the negative. The motion passes to approve for first reading. It meets the two-thirds threshold, and it will go on the, it'll be advertised for second reading in the Medford Transcript and Somerville Journal, and then we will come back before this body for a third reading once that advertising period is complete. Thank you so much. Thank you. 24-425, Community Preservation Committee appropriation request. Let me get my papers in order and we can, oh Lord. Give me a minute here.
[Zac Bears]: I really wish I wasn't. I just need to pull it up online. I do have paper copies of the- I thought I did too, but somehow in my unstapling and random sorting, I've lost it. All right, here we go. Paper 24-425, Community Preservation Committee Appropriation Request. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, on behalf of the Community Preservation Committee, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following recommendations of the Community Preservation Committee. Requesting the appropriation of $20,000 from the CPA General Reserve to Medford Public Schools for the purchase and installation of bicycle repair stations at the McGlynn, Andrews, and Medford High Schools. Requesting the appropriation of $5,000 from the CPA General Reserves to the Roberts Elementary School PTO for the purchase and installation of a basketball hoop at the Roberts Elementary School, and requesting an appropriation of $5,000 to the Medford Public Schools for the purchase and installation of a Gaga ball pit for the Medford-McGlynn Elementary School. I say that like I'm not a little monster. A gaga ball pit for the McGlynn Elementary School. The project will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund. The CPC recommendation letters are attached to the incorporation. Community Preservation Act manager Teresa DuPont and chairperson Roberta Cameron will be in attendance. Peter Cushing and Andrew O'Brien have been invited to speak. I'm sure they're not here at this point. They probably have something else to do. Yeah, and maybe a first time we've heard a little monster in the council chamber. So I will go to you. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Manager DuPont.
[Zac Bears]: Questions on the bicycle infrastructure? Seeing none. Great.
[Zac Bears]: Can you give it in two sentences?
[Zac Bears]: Sounds like we're not teaching tough love. So maybe we need to bring that back. The safe dodge ball. If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball. I'm just glad it's not like Lady Gaga branded and we're not paying extra for it.
[Zac Bears]: All right. I have a motion of Councilor Skidmore to approve, seconded by? Second. Second. Councilor Leming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. This is on 24425. Yes. She's still with us. Councilor Callahan. Yes. Yes. Oh, there we go.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean, then the negative emotion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes, and all my papers are a little bit out of order. 24427, appropriation for Medford High School MSBA feasibility study. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respect the request and recommend that your Honorable Body vote as reviewed, the following as reviewed by the Massachusetts School Business Authority, I think I should say School Building Authority, and we may need to correct that. that the City of Medford appropriates the amount of $3 million, $3 million, for the purpose of paying costs for the feasibility study for Medford High School, currently located at 489 Winthrop Street, Medford, Massachusetts, including the payment of all costs, incidental or related thereto, and for which the City of Medford may be eligible for a grant from the Massachusetts School Building Authority, MSBA, and the set amount to be expended under the direction of the Medford Comprehensive High School Building Committee. To meet this appropriation, the Mayor, with the approval of the City Council, proposes the use of $3 million in free cash. The City of Medford acknowledges that the MSBA's grant program is a non-entitlement discretionary program based on need, as determined by the MSBA, and any costs the City of Medford incurs in excess of the grant approved by and received from the MSBA shall be the sole responsibility of the City of Medford, and that the amount authorized pursuant to this vote shall be reduced by any grant amount set forth in the feasibility study agreement that may be executed between the City of Medford and the MSBA. Thank you for your kind attention in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. And I will go to the Chief of Staff, for a presentation of the paper.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will go to Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Lazzaro, Vice President Collins, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, whereas chapter 43, section 22 applies to ordinances and their multiple readings, and none of the papers require multiple readings. We're gonna keep moving on this. I have a question to the chair.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have a written legal opinion I can review? Is there a written legal opinion for review by the chair?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, Chapter 43, Section 22 applies to ordinances for multiple readings. General law. I'm reading it right now.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it reads.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli, do you have a written legal opinion for the chair on this matter? I will get you that tomorrow. I limit choice of the discretion of the chairs that I read. I'll read chapter 43, section 22. Any ordinance order or resolution may be passed through all its stages of legislation at one session, provided that no member of the council objects thereto. But if any member of the council objects, the measure shall be postponed for that meeting. Ordinances have multiple stages of legislation, a first reading, a second reading, and a third reading, whereas none of the paper, at least the paper before us, and if your intent is to apply it to 24428, 24432, 24433 and 24434. Well, I'd have to read 24434. That may be an ordinance amendment, but at least the first four are not ordinances. They don't require multiple stages. And therefore the objection doesn't apply and the rule, the law doesn't apply. The law does because if the council would like to provide a legal opinion to the chair, we've done that.
[Zac Bears]: There's a motion to challenge the ruling of the chair by councilor Scarpelli. Is there a second?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to challenge the ruling of the chair by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Leming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. No, it isn't debatable. It's not debatable. I mean, the principle here is absolutely unquestionable.
[Zac Bears]: The motion is not debatable.
[Zac Bears]: No, I think it has plenty of due diligence. There you go, rule 22. The motion's undebatable. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: This is on the motion to overrule the ruling of the chair that chapter 43, section 22 does not apply to this paper as this paper is not an ordinance that requires three readings. Councilor Callahan. We'll go to the next.
[Zac Bears]: Said no. No negative emotion fails the ruling of the chairs that chapter 43 section 22 does not apply to this I would appreciate if you could provide it tonight without legal fighting for transparency and open government
[Zac Bears]: Well, you know, again, there's been no evidence presented.
[Zac Bears]: We're gonna maintain business and we're gonna move forward on this item. Oh, so many people are so, so many accusations of shame. So many accusations. Let's move ahead. I would like to continue on this item. Are these questions related to the item before us? I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming and Vice President Collins and then Councilor Tseng. Forum is for, required. Thank you. And yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And just before we continue, I just want to explain the free cash process. As Councilor Lazzaro was noting, the previous free cash certification was for July 1 of 2022. That was in the amount of $25 million and change. Last week, the Department of the Division of Local Services, I believe, issued a free cash certification for the city as of July 1, 2023. While the free cash amount was not certified, and that amount was $34 million, while that amount had not been certified when the financial task force was having its discussions, we were very aware that the reason for free cash balance amounts and the certification of amounts was due to essentially three factors. One was the use of ARPA funds provided by the federal government instead of free cash in many situations over the past three fiscal years. The second was the conservative estimation of local receipts as part of revenues. I see Councilor Leming. Was the conservative estimation of local receipts. As part of the local revenues, as we heard from our finance director this year, the amount estimated for local receipts for the fiscal 25 budget is at the upper bounds of comfort of what we have submitted, and I'm seeing a smirk and smile. Mr. Dickinson, and it's a fingers crossed. And the third was turned back to open positions, most of which have been filled, there was no expectation whatsoever by anyone familiar with the finances of the city that we will continue to see free cash balance increases of five to $10 million a year. Those are not reliable revenue sources, they're not stable revenue sources, and they are not responsible revenue sources to base our budgets on or to suggest that we have enough funding for Medford Public Schools or for DPW or for a new Medford Fire Headquarters. So those are the facts of free cash. Those are the financial statistics of our community. That is why even though there is a free cash balance certified as of July 1, 2023 for fiscal 24, $34 million that we need the stable recurring revenues as proposed by the mayor and approved by the council for the override votes in November. This is not, free cash is not a solution to those problems. It never has been and it never will be. We also have this amount, which is good, basically thanks to the federal ARPA program. There is a documentation in here outlining the draft free cash plan of the administration, which we can discuss tonight and consider further as a council. It brings us back down very, very quickly with our capital needs to the 10 to $15 million range of free cash reserves recommended by all of the state financial agencies for communities to have I think it's between five and 7% of their annual budget in a reserve and that's where this will bring us so. The federal ARPA program did give us some spending in recent years that we otherwise wouldn't have had. It gave us a little boost to address capital needs. Those capital needs, even if we spent all 34 million on them tomorrow, would not address the massive capital deficit we have for our city facilities, school facilities, roads, sidewalks, water and sewer system, which as we've discussed at numerous meetings of this council, is in the hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars. With that, I will go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I'll second Vice President Collins' motion. Any further discussion on the MSBA feasibility study, or is there a motion on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: Is there a motion on the floor to approve by Councilor Lazzaro, by Councilor Collins? Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. On the motion to approve this appropriation of $3 million for the MSBA, and is there an amendment to the paper to change business to building? On the motion to approve as amended by Vice President Collins, as seconded by Councilor Leming. Any further discussion? Discussion members of the public? Can I have an address for the record, please? You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, the free cash balance that we have has come from unfilled positions, underestimated revenues, mainly in local receipts. So not really from the property tax and from the use of federal funds. So we're now proposing to use those balances on these one-time expenditures like the feasibility study and the other things outlined in the plan. Your income was more than your expenses, our expenses that we budgeted for we were not able to spend because of things like, for example, 10 police officer positions were unfilled many things. So, and there were many positions unfilled correct so any money that wasn't used then to pay for overtime was turned back. But we still need to budget that money going forward otherwise we'd have to cut 10 police officers or cut those firefighters so for that wasn't that there was an overtaxing, it was that the budget was not able to be spent exactly how was expected in June of the prior year so we, but we still need to spend that money, we took in more money than we expended.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, that's what we're trying to do. I'm going to go to Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Andrew, I'm unmuting you.
[Zac Bears]: You may need to mute your television.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna go to Jess H on Zoom. Jess, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: This is being appropriated from the city's free cash reserve for the one time expense of the school building authority feasibility study.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the public. Seeing none in the chamber and no hands on Zoom, on the motion of Vice President Collins, as seconded by Councilor Leming, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. As amended. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: from Mayor Bernalino Kern to fund General Stabilization Establish and Fund Capital Stabilization Funds. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that Your Honorable Body vote to appropriate free cash in the amount of $6 million into the General Stabilization Fund established earlier this year by Your Honorable Body. As you know, the vast majority of cities and towns in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have a General Stabilization Fund. In order to provide for emergencies and unforeseen expenses, a simple majority of the City Council is required to appropriate funds into a stabilization fund. Further, in accordance with Chapter 40, Section 5b of the General Laws, I respect the request and recommend that Your Honorable Body take the following actions, each requiring a two-thirds majority vote of the City Council for establishment. One, establish a capital stabilization fund and vote to approve $5 million of free cash to this fund. Two, establish a water and sewer capital stabilization fund and vote to appropriate $2 million of retained earnings to this fund. As you are aware, free cash and retained earnings are only available after certification through June 30th of each year. Each year without a stabilization fund, the city could face significant challenges in addressing emergencies or capital needs from July 1st until free cash is certified. Chapter 40, section 5B of the general law stipulates that, quote, cities, towns, and districts may create one or more stabilization funds and appropriate any amount to the funds. The Division of Local Services, Financial Management Resource Bureau, Notes in a published article, quote, a city or town's capital assets are a vital part of providing essential services to residents. Capital assets include public buildings and structures, roadways, parks and fields, large equipment like dump trucks, mowers, fire engines, fire breathing apparatus, police cruisers, radio equipment, as well as land acquisitions. Major repairs to a capital asset or when it needs to be replaced unexpectedly or reaches its expected useful life early can be a significant shock to the budget. Additionally, deferred maintenance of capital needs, Existing capital assets is a major contributor to capital failures, as these necessary upkeep costs are sometimes avoided in the interest of balancing the budget. One way to better prepare for capital expenditures, both planned and unexpected, is to establish a special purpose capital stabilization fund dedicated to funding regular required capital repairs and maintenance. In close, please find a draft free cash plan for your review and input. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. And in terms of the free cash plan, we have a free cash and retained earnings update. Based on the unaudited balance sheet submitted, this is from the Department of Revenue Division of Local Services, notification of free cash approval. I hereby certify that the amount of available funds for free cash as of July 1 for City of Medford is General Fund $34,241,981, Enterprise Fund Water and Sewer $11,164,741, This certification is in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 59, Section 23 as amended. As per requests to the Council dated June 18, 2024, I am requesting the following funds be appropriated from free cash, $6 million General Stabilization Fund, $5 million Capital Stabilization Fund, $3 million Mass School Building Authority Feasibility Study, for a total of $14 million. The capital stabilization funding mentioned would be a source for fiscal 2024 and prior year capital improvement needs. For the remaining funds, I anticipate the following future appropriation requests. I welcome the Council's input on future appropriation requests before my office and the finance team work to finalize an initial roadmap for the funds. $1 million additional funding to renovate the Hegner Center. 2.5 million fire department fleet replacements, 2 million pension liability, 2 million fiscal year 2025 capital improvements, 2 million fiscal year 2026 capital improvements, $9.5 million. Please note that we do not anticipate future certifications to be as large as the last few years. There are many factors that contribute to the balance in free cash today, including conservative estimating of revenues in pandemic years, vacancies in personnel positions, health insurance budget turnbacks, and the availability of ARPA funds. While best practices still dictate that we should be somewhat conservative on revenue estimates, we push the envelope for fiscal 25 with our finance directors out. We're now able to process personal hires faster than we were able to in the past, and we are not expecting any health insurance turnbacks. Instead, actuals are showing a deficit for fiscal 24, and the ability to appropriate ARPA funds ends December 31, 2024. Finally, as the council may know, the Division of Local Services General Stabilization recommended goal is five to 7% of the current operating budget range. For Medford, five to 7% of the fiscal 25 budget would be 9.47, between 9.47 and 13.26 million. on funds certified for water sewer enterprise. As the council knows, $2 million is proposed for a capital stabilization fund specifically for water and sewer, and the city is presently performing a water system analysis capital plan and rate study, which will help further inform the city in its planning efforts to address the aging water infrastructure across the city. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Reinaldo Kernmayer. So right there, we're talking about $25 million. sorry, $23.5 million of that $34 million going either to stabilization funds or specific projects. There was a request for us to review an input on the free cash plan, so at some point we should discuss how we want to do that. And with that, I will go to Vice President Collins and then Chief of Staff Nazarian. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the, I'm just gonna put it out there. I'm gonna go to the Chief of Staff. We have a B paper to schedule a committee of the whole with the administration to discuss the draft free cash plan. And then Councilor Collins has also made a motion to approve the main paper. Is there a second by Councilor Tseng? A second by Councilor Tseng. I will go to Chief of Staff Nazarian, and then I will go to Councilor Tseng. Madam Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair and staff.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any other questions. We probably should divide the question on the main paper I have to go to Councilor Callahan, Councilor Callahan my apologies.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Kelly and Councilor, Chief of Staff Nazarian.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. Any further questions or comments on the creation of these stabilization funds and the appropriation of free cash funds to them?
[Zac Bears]: But about in April 22 is 40%. Yes. And that includes towns of 100 and your tollens and your Florida's and your, I suspect, but yes, all 351 cities and towns.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions? Councilor Calhoun?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, we'll take the B paper first. On the B paper by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. And there will probably be four votes on this paper.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, yes, the re-paper motion, Councilor Callahan, is that we hold a committee of the whole with the administration to discuss and review the draft free cash plan.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 from everyone absent the motion passes. And then we have the a paper. Is there a request to divide I think we should divide this into three votes, but I can't do that. I guess I could. Councilor Tseng is requested divided into three votes. So the first vote would be to appropriate $6 million in free cash to the General Stabilization Fund. On that motion by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. This is six million to the General Stabilization Fund.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes.
[Zac Bears]: This is 5 million to establish the Capital Stabilization Fund and appropriate 5 million.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng? Yes. 6 in the affirmative, 1 in the negative. The motion passes. And on the final question, on the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng, to establish a water and sewer capital stabilization fund and vote to appropriate $2 million of retained earnings to this fund. When you're ready, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. And we only have Three more papers to go. This is the water and sewer capital stabilization and the appropriation of $2 million in retained earnings.
[Zac Bears]: We couldn't hear you Councilor Callahan. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one in the negative, one absent, the motion passes. And we have established these savings accounts, appropriated funds to them. Those funds have not been spent. They just have simply been appropriated to accounts where the city can access them during the period between the start of the next fiscal year and when free cash and retained earnings are certified.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, we'll move to 24432, acceptance of shared service statute. Dear President Bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body vote to accept the provisions of Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 71, Section 37M, which would allow the city to share services between municipal departments and the school department. As you'll see in the enclosed statute, the acceptance of the statute requires majority approval of the city council and the school committee. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Brandolino Kern, Mayor. Madam Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any questions? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further questions?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, and just from some discussions that I've had, my understanding is one of those areas would be facilities maintenance planning, which we have a need for and issues with across the city historically for decades. And so that's something I have heard talked about, but hopefully further discussion would be happening on that. All right, Councilor Callahan, I see your hand raised. All right, thank you. We will go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: on the motion to approve the standard service statute by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Any further discussion? Seeing none, no hands on Zoom, no one at the podium. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Yes, 424432. Councilor Callahan, is that a yes? We really can't hear you. there might be something issue with your audio.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Cahn, we're unable to hear you. You can just continue with the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Five in the affirmative, two absent, the motion passes. 24435. sorry, 24433, offered by Member Angelico Kern. Fiscal year 2024 year-end transfers. Dear President Bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves the following end of year transfers for fiscal 24. Transfer two, legislative salaries, 4,000. Transfer from, contractual agreements, 4,000. Transfer two, finance expenses, 5,000. Transfer from, cable salaries, 5,000. Transfer two, finance salaries, 25,000. Transfer from, contractual agreements, 25,000. Transfer two, assessor salaries, 14,500. Transfer from, contractual agreements, 14,500. Transfer two, HR salaries, 21,000. Transfer from, contractual agreements, 21,000. Transfer two, information technology salaries. On the motion to waive the rest of the reading. On the motion to waive the rest of the reading by Councilor Leming, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Seeing as Councilor Keohokalole and I was unable to hear, go for. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes with two absences. The total amount here is, well there's no total at the bottom of this, but essentially these are end-of-year transfers from one account to another account to address minor deficits in those accounts. Madam Chief of Staff or The only very large ones, there's facilities expenses, 200,000 coming from some other sources, workers' comp 200,000 coming from some other sources, and insurance expenses of one million coming from other sources. I believe we have discussed prior to this that the insurance expenses were higher than expected. With that, I will go to the Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions from members of the council about the end of your transfers? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Second. On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Leming, I just wanted to ask one question, Madam Chief of Staff. My understanding is that from the budget passed for fiscal 25 on June 11th, that the facilities budget for utilities, workers comp, and health insurance were increased given the actuals estimates. That's why those were higher, part of the reason those were higher.
[Zac Bears]: Well, at least we will be able to do that before free cash is certified next year, because we have a stabilization fund. All right, on the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Leming, to approve the fiscal year 24 end of year transfers, 24-433. Yes, and it looks like we do have Councilor Callahan back, so we'll try that again. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: We heard you loud and clear.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 60 affirmative one absent the motion passes 24-434 the end of a long road offered by Mayor Brando-Lingo Kern proposed wage adjustment for non-union personnel. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend the City Council approve the following amendment to the revised ordinances, Chapter 66, Entitled Personnel, Article II, Entitled Reserve, the City's Classification and Compensation Plan, formally included as Article II, Section 6631-6640, by adopting the following changes. Amendment A, non-union personnel, effective January 1, 2024, increase the base salary of all non-union titles by 1%, effective july 1 2024 increase the base salary of all non-union titles by two percent i further request and recommend that calf 22 the mayor's position being excluded from the cost of living adjustments cola afforded to the non-union personnel between 2021 and 2024 and something less than the general two percent increases be made to calf 2022 such as a mix of 0% and 1% increases. Suggested increases would be 1,120, 0%, 1,121, 1%, 1,122, 1%, 1,123, 1%, 1,124, 0%, 7,124, 1%, there'll be a total of a 4% increase. There has been no increase to the salary for the position of mayor since 7-1-2014 for 10 years. The following is a table of the historical COLA's attributed to CAF 22. And again, this just shows that it went up by 2.5% in 2013, 2% in 2014, and then has not increased since 7-1-2014. Amendment B, the language of CAF 19 shall be amended to include the following position, human resources director. Amendment C, per the council's request, the language of CAF 21 shall be amended to remove the following position, and a new classification of CAF 21.5 be created to include the following position as per the below table, which takes into account the above cost of living increases. Quote, city solicitor, Step one, $138,648.89. Step two, $143,683.59. Step three, $148,901.12. Step four, $154,308.11. Step five, $159,911.99. and 44 cents. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. So let's take these in order. First, we have Amendment A, non-union personnel, effective January 1, an increase of 1% to the base salary, effective July 1, an increase of 2% to the base salary. The mayor has requested that the mayor's position be excluded and that some other amount other than those two amounts be included. I'll go to Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro. Actually, could we get a presentation from the Chief of Staff before questions? Madam Chief of Staff, Councilor Collins, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Could we take them one at a time? Absolutely.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On Amendment A, Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins, excuse me, excuse me, thank you. I will call on you when it is my time to call on you and you will wait until I do so. Councilor Lazzaro, after I just reviewed the motion, there's a motion on the floor from Vice President Collins to approve Amendment A while excluding CAF 22. Vice President, sorry, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: So are you excluding, I'm confused by what you're saying.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, everything below the 2% bullet point is not part of this.
[Zac Bears]: This amendment.
[Zac Bears]: would not be applied. All of this amendment does is proposes non-union personnel to get 1% on January 1, 2024 and 2% on July 1, 2024. Okay. And then the mayor has asked if we want to include some amount for the mayor. If we exclude CAF 22, then they're excluded from those two races.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: You want to include 1-121, 1-122, 1-123, and seven. You want to include the mayor's cap 22 in in January one in July one.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So you want to approve amendment a with no exclusion of the mayor. All right.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further questions? We have a motion on the floor from Vice President Collins to approve with no exclusions. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Seeing no further questions, I will go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment from members of the public on this matter? Seeing none, there's a motion on the floor by Vice President Collins to approve with no exclusions. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. So for amendment A, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. This is 24 434 Amendment A. No. So no. Yes. Yes. yes yes for the affirmative to the negative one absent the motion passes amendment be the language of cap 19 shall be amended to include the following position human resources director chief of staff Nazari
[Zac Bears]: Any questions from members of the council on the addition of the human resources director to CAF 19? Vice President on the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve, seconded by Vice President Collins. Any questions members of the council or members of the public? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. This is 24434 amendment B. Yes, this is amendment B. Yes. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. We now have paper two, three, four, three, four, two, four, four, three, four, amendment C. Per the council's request, the language of CAF 21 shall be amended to remove the following position and a new classification of CAF 21.5 be created to include the following position as per the below table, which takes into account the above cost of living increases. I've already read this, but this is essentially creating a CAF 21.5 to increase the salary for the city solicitor. I believe this was budgeted for in fiscal 25 budget. Any questions or discussion on this motion? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve paper 24.434 amendment C, seconded by councilor Lazzaro. Madam clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative one absent the motion passes. 24436 complete public participation is done on the motion of Councilors saying to adjourn seconded by Council is our own. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. affirmative one absent the motion passes and the meeting is adjourned
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Paola, for presenting this. I had one question, which is just the timeline side of the document. Is that, have we seen that yet? It wasn't in the packet. I just wanted to, okay. Oh, yeah, it's.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Very tiny. I think the only comment I really have at this point, I'm going to need to review it and digest it. that I hope that it helps, it's helping me to see the scope and scale of the ambition of the project that we have been working on and are undertaking and I hope to anyone watching or present that they can also see just how much work we are doing on this and how ambitious this project is. I think it's really exciting and big for Medford to be taking this on and the culmination of at least 10 years of this council before I was here, as well as the planning office, doing really amazing work. So beyond that, there's so many details that I'm going to leave my comments very general. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just had a couple questions on the zoning with the neighborhood, the neighboring cities and towns. Would it be possible for when we get the final versions of those to have one that is just the Medford and then one with both? And could we add Everton if possible? And... I'm guessing that we kind of tried to take the zones from the neighboring communities and comp them to ours. Is that what the color?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Thank you for the efforts. I just think, you know, when I talk about, and I don't know, maybe it might be worth Melrose too, but it's just interesting to see how our zoning is like almost like a pizza pie of the surrounding communities. It's an interesting analysis to look at, but I think the average would show why Wellington is the way Wellington is a little bit too. Yeah, definitely, of course.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to keep the paper in committee and adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: The only thing, and maybe we can talk about it more on the 26th, that I think would be good to at least start talking about is the, and it's kind of in here as the new topics, but the work plan, kind of the two tracks of the work plan that we talked about recently, where we'd have kind of the global citywide changes on one track and then changes that are going to require different local neighborhood discussions or essentially the district by district and neighborhood type changes on another track and hopefully kind of try to have that out there well in advance so the residents can be informed and know when we're going to be talking about their neighborhood as it relates to the comp plan and all the other changes we want to make. just that I think maybe we can take that to the 26. Maybe it's like a natural next step from this final topic here on our agenda today.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I just had one, I think this is great. I just had one quick change from the Climate Adaptation Action Plan. I just think that BE 1.1 should probably be like an HP or maybe HPHA instead of in CR, but the rest of that did seem to be climate. At least that's how I read BE 1.1.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I think H-P as well. But I hear what you're saying. I think adding to the list makes sense.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. The rest of the CAAP, you know, recommendations seem pretty solidly in the climate resiliency bucket to me. Well, now we get back down to the accessible neighborhoods and maybe I'm, yeah, I can see something that could have some overlap there as well. But I like the idea of going through, I don't know, Maybe, maybe we could go through the bolded ones like the, with just the one point, you know, without the sub letters and maybe we could prioritize those first.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think it might also be useful to both of your points to look at this. I mean, I think we can do what you just said and kind of go through this and put some general priorities down, but I think it might actually be useful to, instead of have like almost a turn the table, like instead of having the numbers and headers from the plans be like the defining column, but to have the topics be the column, and then we could split it out into goals and actions grouped within the topic. I mean, I think we're kind of doing it just as like, if this was a spreadsheet, I would just move a column and then sort it differently. Right. Um, so, and I think it might, like, it might be useful for us to take, like, I generally think that most of the things in bold here are goal statements and most of the sub headers are like different possible actions that could happen within each topic. I think it might be useful for us to have a table, like take the goals that are under each topic and kind of come up with what you just said, Alicia, like a general goal statement for each topic area. I think these are a great starting point. We probably would narrow them down a little bit so we don't have like a nine bullet point kind of necessarily goal statement. And then have the specific recommended strategies in there as well. And then I think the other piece of this, like to Alicia's point, like I think there's two things we can do here, right? Like One is, there's one track of this that's like, we want to look at all of our district and our map, and we want to talk about what uses we want and what places, what dimensional requirements we want in which places, and essentially what we want neighborhoods, corridors, and squares to look like across the city. And then there's what are things that we want to be happening in all of those districts for all of the new construction, right? Like we, like some of the, um, climate resiliency type stuff, like we're going to want new construction generally. And maybe it's not in all of them because I don't, I don't know how the building code interacts with quite frankly, that's a piece of it. I have a lot less, uh, understanding of, but, um, general guidelines that we would want to apply to the entire city. And to me, it's, um, it's the climate resiliency and the housing affordability and the, to an extent, the economic development and business growth and the transportation and multimodal ways like those seem to me to be more like we want complete streets everywhere. We want net zero construction everywhere. We want, um, you know, more housing affordability everywhere we want more business growth in all parts of the city and what are policies that can do that. And then that's one track of things. Then there's a track of things that is, this is kind of the specific like form, um, of, you know, the shape and size of structures and the vision of lots and like what, um, and the heights and densities in different parts of the city, um, and redrawing the boundaries and barriers of, uh, of the zoning district. So, um, that just to me, I think is a good, a way that I could think about this a little more clearly. And I think to like, just taking that, maybe taking these, all of these topics and putting them into those two buckets and then taking kind of resorting this, um, list of recommendations from the climate and comprehensive plans. to have be like shorter tables under each topic area could be a way of organizing it. Um, but I also think we could go through today and at least talk about prioritizing some of these, but again, it, yeah, like I, my top priority is reducing zoning barriers to multifamily and mixed use housing development. And then also probably something in the, uh, you know, not necessarily undertaking corridor and commercial center studies, but allowing an appropriate mix of uses and land controls for cohesive development along corridors and within squares. Like those are my two big ones.
[Zac Bears]: It's the microphone. It's not you. I know.
[Zac Bears]: It's a little box up there, a little cardboard box. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: this is really helpful, this table.
[Zac Bears]: Could we take a look at the kind of more simplified tables that Paula just said? Yeah, great. Because I think it might be better to like go through those than to go through each of the, I think that sounds like what you were saying, Paula, if I heard you right.
[Zac Bears]: I was following up until the kind of timing element of it. Are you saying that a number would mean a time?
[Zac Bears]: Like a five would mean three months, a four would mean six months or something like that?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Yeah, that's okay. Is the, what is, it's called a Miro page. Is that what I saw, Paula?
[Zac Bears]: Is that able, like, could that be shared? Could we edit that separately? I think it would be worth it personally. I mean, I understand that people don't want to do it this way, but I could, I think we could spend five minutes and each of us pick a row and, you know, you guys can pick a row. We can pick a row and we can just move them now and then we don't have to wait. And then we can talk about why things are where they are for 10 minutes. Cause I just worry if we do it asynchronously, It's, there's no collective time for us to interpret it until the next time we want to talk about it, which is when we want it to be done. Sure. So yeah, I know it's kind of fast, but I feel like I could do it.
[Zac Bears]: I'm very much on the other side of that. I thought we could take the top level topics.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, I felt very comfortable doing that. It's not to say that they're not, I think this is about importance in terms of timing, right? That's what I'm hearing.
[Zac Bears]: I think that's what this is. Examples of rating strategies section is great. It takes similarly grouped things from multiple plans, says which topics they're in, if you could scroll down a little bit, and then kind of says, okay, there's like seven strategies, it falls under six topics, that's a five. And then if you scroll down to the next one, it's like, yeah, we want Medford to be, we want to mitigate heat islands, right? There's three strategies, it's only climate resiliency. So it addresses that conflict question, right? That first topic, that's across six of our topic areas. We need to talk about that discreetly because if we talk about it by topic area, it's not gonna be useful. It sounded to me like Paola was saying, if we could kind of just as a general thing, take these top goals, that that would provide them input as they go through these strategies to help inform what they think of as basically creating these little strategy summaries for each thing. And I think that, to me, that's valuable. It's not saying this is more important than the other. It's saying You know, to me, it's easy for me to say, okay, I think all of them are important. I'd like to do all of them. There are some of them that I would call a five and some of them I would call a two. Heat islands, I care about them. Do I think it's as urgent as the fact that nobody can live here? No. So calling housing affordability a five and calling heat islands a two, which is what it is in here. I'm just saying that as an example. But it sounds like the two options are we could either give a little bit of input now to help guide, or they could just do it themselves, and then we can come back with our changes later. And to me, it seems valuable. I mean, at this point, it's eight o'clock, maybe we should just not do it. We should just say, go ahead, Ines, and come up with it. But that seemed to me to be where we were. It took me a minute, but that does seem to be a valuable exercise to me to take five minutes and say, this goal is a five, this goal is a three, this goal is a two, and hopefully that informs the work plan more than just having them develop it themselves without that kind of something to guide them. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, if Paola could just send that table that's in that document that you were just on, Paola, I can send it back with, I can just fill the whole thing out and send it back.
[Zac Bears]: If you email it now, I can send it back to you in five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just that little table that you were just on in the prioritization of strategies.
[Zac Bears]: I'm sure Jimmy can move the. What was that? I'm sure Jimmy can move the sticky notes around by my next meeting.
[Zac Bears]: I was just wondering, are we going to be able to see these different layers on top of each other and be able to have just two layers on at a time or one? Or how exactly is that going to work?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. The other one I have a question about is the encouraged balanced growth. Is that a balance of commercial and residential?
[Zac Bears]: So that's like the economic development one. Okay. Then yeah, it would be for me the affordable housing and for all the growth, balanced growth and coordinating mobility and development. And I think Yeah, outside of that, I'll leave it at those three. But if I was to pick a fourth, I'd probably pick Achieve and Evolve, the 2022 Climate Action Plan. I feel like buildings and energy, I mean, I'm sure there's more we can do, but I just think also, it seems to me that the new building code that we've adopted also just mandates a lot of new stuff. So it's like, how much further do we wanna go down that road first?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and that's why I wanna take the two track. Like I think it, and I was even saying in our meeting, like one meeting a month on these global questions, one meeting a month on like specific areas, and then we can take the, most urgent corridors, I agree with those two being primary ones sooner than later. Hopefully if we can put out something in July, we can do, you know, Mystic Ave in September, Salem Street in October, then we can go to the other squares and corridors. And similarly, so we could start looking at the, you know, some of the global housing affordability and economic development type things earlier in the fall. I think the one question at the end of that is like, when do we come up with the coherent, you know, map? So, and does that, is that map end up being the product of a number of changes or not? That's an open question to me. But other than that, like, that's kind of why I would like to see us go in that direction. Because I mean, each month, this group can have one meeting to talk about each of those two tracks and hopefully outpace some of the stuff you're talking about.
[Zac Bears]: I think it might be also useful for us at some point to maybe it's not on the 26. Maybe it's in a July or August meeting to have the break out the neighborhood squaring quarters topic into the actual neighborhood squares and corridors and like prioritize physical areas of the city. I think the mapping analysis will help a lot with that, which is I suggest maybe for July or August.
[Zac Bears]: And we might have to put some lines around some neighborhoods. People might have to deal.
[Zac Bears]: We could potentially do an hour on Tuesday night And meeting on Wednesday night, if you guys, I know that, I know, cause I said it wrong last night, you're on the 26th and the 27th are the CD and ZBA. I think right now we have six to seven on the 25th before our regular meeting, if we, so maybe we can just consider that over the next two weeks. I mean, I don't wanna, it's obviously up to everybody being available at that time, but in our council schedule, it is available.
[Zac Bears]: 12th regular meeting, June 11th, 2024 Medford City Council. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag.
[Zac Bears]: 24405 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Alexander and Lucy Lemme. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate Mr. and Mrs. Alexander and Lucy Lemme on their 70th wedding anniversary. They were married on June 13th, 1954. Mr. Lemme was born in South Medford and has lived in Medford all his life and attended and graduated from Medford High School. He served in the Korean War and then returned to Medford and married his beautiful wife, Lucy, where they raised their family, Alexander, Josie, Janet, and Paul Lemme. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Council Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 7 in the affirmative. None in the negative. The motion passes. 24-409 offered by Council President Bears. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we congratulate the Medford High School Class of 2024 on their graduation and send them our best wishes as they begin their next adventure. We just had graduation last week for the Medford High School class of 2024, and I'm going to recognize Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? I wanna send my congratulations as well. Very impressive group of students, regardless of what they may be doing after. I just hope that they will contribute some of their great success to our community. On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 7 in the affirmative, zero in the negative. Motion passes to 24-411 congratulations to the organizers of Medford porchfest 2024, it was all by the Medford City Council that we congratulate the volunteer organizers hosts and attendees at Medford fortress 2024 on an incredible day of music and community building. We had Medford Porch Fest recently. It was an incredible success. We saw, I think, over a hundred locations hosting music. I managed to get to three of them, and it was just a really wonderful day for our city to see so many people coming together and out in the streets and just making a great show of Medford's arts, culture, and community. Any further discussion? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of the Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Callahan, all those in favor, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes. Negative. The motion passes records. The records of the meeting of May 28th, 2024 were passed to Councilor. Let me Councilor. Let me, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: Are there any discussion on the records? on the motion of council. Let me do approve. Seconded by Council is R. O. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 70 affirmative. None of the negative. The motion passes and the records are approved. Reports of committees 23449 offered by Councilor Lazzaro, Public Health and Community Safety Committee, June 5th, 2024, report to follow. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: petition for a grant of location, National Grid Inc. of North Andover, Massachusetts, Medford, Massachusetts City Clerk's Office. You are hereby notified that by order of the Medford City Council, a public hearing will be held in the Howard F. Alderman Memorial Chambers and by Zoom at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, June 11th, 2024, on a petition filed by the Massachusetts Electric Company, DBA, National Grid, and Verizon New England, Incorporated, to add one additional joint owned pole located at 171 Park Street, Medford, MA 02155, and permission to locate the wires including the necessary sustaining and protecting fixtures along and across Park Street. National Grid is petitioning to install a new 40-foot Class 3 wood pole at 171 Park Street in order to install a new 50 kilovolt amp transformer to offload existing overloaded transformers on Park Street. A new Zoom link for this meeting will be provided not later than Friday, June 7, 2024. The petition has been filed in accordance with the plan marked National Grid Plan Number WR30955. 090 Park Street, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, March 28, 2024. Wherefore, I praise that after due notice and hearing as provided by law, it be granted a location for and permission to erect and maintain poles and wires together with such sustaining and protecting fixtures as it may find necessary. Said poles to be erected substantially in accordance with the plan filed here with Mark Park Street, Medford, Massachusetts. Also for permission to lay and maintain underground laterals, cables, and wires in the above or intersecting public ways for the purpose of making connections with such poles and buildings. as each of said petitioners may desire for distributing purposes. Approved by the superintendent of wires approved chief engineer with the following conditions. The grant of location is limited to one additional joint owned utility pole located within the sidewalk between 179 and 171 park street labeled P three nine zero nine one dash one two. Before starting work, the contractor shall notify dig safe and obtain all applicable right of way permits from the engineering division. The project must obtain a public right of way occupancy PRO permit pursuant to section 74 dash one for one of the city ordinances prior to commencing work. Three, no other utility structures, conduits, duct banks, pipes, or any other appurtenances are adversely impacted. National Grid shall ensure that all sewer, water, and drain lines are marked prior to any excavation. Four, placement of the joint owned utility pole must provide at least 36 inch clearance of accessible travel path around the structure in accordance with ADA regulations and city standards. Five, the cement concrete sidewalk restoration shall be done at the time of installation and in consultation with the engineering division per the requirements of an approved PRO permit. Any concrete sidewalk damage during this work must be replaced in kind and cleanly cut at the control joints. Temporary patching using bituminous concrete pavement will not be permitted. The sidewalk restoration of the temporary patch located at utility risers on P3092 must also be restored during this time in accordance with old petitions that were granted by the city. The project site must be swept after installation or daily and shall be kept free of debris for the duration of the installation. Park Street is a very narrow, heavily traveled roadway and requires a mandatory police detail to perform this work. The engineering division recommends that the applicant consult with the Medford Police Department traffic sergeants prior to scheduling this work since work hours may be restricted to outside normal operations. Nine, at least 72 hours prior to the start of the project, National Grid must coordinate a better communications with the director of communications and submit any required information that may be requested to effectively inform the public, signed Adam L. Hurtubise. Do we have a representative of National Grid in person or on Zoom? Thank you for being here. Name and address for the record, please. And if you could just describe the project and give us any information, and then we can open the public hearing.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Do we have the city engineer available to discuss the conditions? We do have the recommendation of the city engineer with the conditions, but I did want to give him a check in a second. Do we have any questions from councilors for the petitioner before we open the public hearing? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Any further questions for the petitioner? Seeing that, I just wanted to note for the scheduling purposes, the condition of coordinating with the police department traffic sergeants. And I did have one question on the sidewalk restoration of the temporary patch located at the utility risers on P3092. Could you go into that anymore? It is a required condition of the project. Oh, was that another patch that was right next to the- I think it would be nearby, but it seems like it has the temporary is still there and it needs to be permanently filled.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. At this time, I'm going to declare a public hearing open for anyone in favor, in opposition, or who otherwise has questions about this project. Public hearing is open. Are you in favor of the project?
[Zac Bears]: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor, in opposition, or who otherwise has questions about this project? Seeing none in the room, I'm going to check Zoom. I have one question here. I'm going to recognize Klein 170-172. Please state your name and address for the record after I request to unmute you.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have any response to the question about whether this is going to serve as a Park Street or other streets?
[Zac Bears]: Is there any intent to run wires across the street to the other side of the street to service properties on Salem Street?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Mr. Klein, I think that's a different pole and a different company. It sounds like as well. It sounds like that.
[Zac Bears]: It's all national grid.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Let's just interpreting what you said. I have the petitioner here saying they do not intend to run wires across the street onto your property.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to ask the administration, the city administration, the chief of staff, do you know if the chief engineer, the city engineer is available at some point to answer this question?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. I didn't see Tim, but I see him now. Commissioner McGibbon, could you raise your hand if you can comment on this or if you think there is a condition that we can put in on this?
[Zac Bears]: I didn't see Tim. I'm gonna unmute you when the audio is off, Tim. Thank you. You can give me a thumbs up.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we hear you. Thanks, Tim. Recognize Commissioner McIver and DPW.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. There is a petition. Mr. Klein, if you want to rephrase the question.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. And thank you, Mr. Klein. Any further comments in the public hearing on this grant of location? Seeing none, I declare the public hearing closed. Is there a motion? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of vice president Collins to approve pending the six day public comment period and adopting the conditions of the city engineer seconded by vice by councilor Kelly and Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven affirmative negative. The motion passes and the grand application is approved. Thank you. 24367 public hearing proposed amendments the Medford zoning ordinance chapter 94 public hearing notices Medford City Council June 11 2024. The Medford City Council, a subsequent public hearing. The Medford City Council shall conduct a public hearing on June 11, 2024 at 7 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chamber on the second floor of Medford City Hall. 85 George P. Hassett Drive and via Zoom, a link to the public hearing will be presented no later than June 7th, 2024 on the following proposed amendments to the City of Medford zoning ordinance. One, amending the format of the table of use and parking regulations to replace the parking and loading code columns with specific parking and loading requirements. Two, amending section 94-12 definitions to add new defined terms and revise existing definitions. 3. Adopt a new GIS-based digital zoning map. Adoption of the new map format is not intended to result in any material changes to zoning of any parcels within the City, but is intended to confirm the best information available to the City regarding the existing zoning designation for all properties in the City. Amending sections 94-1.4 94-6.4.3 subsection 2, 94-11.7.2 subsection 4 and 94-12 to exempt municipal uses from certain use parking and directional dimensional requirements. The full materials for the amendment can be viewed in the office of the city clerk, city hall room 103, or on the city's website at www.medfordma.org, slash department, slash planning, dash development, dash sustainability, by clicking on current CD board filings. If you need reasonable accommodation to attend, participate in either meeting, please contact Francis Nwaje, telephone 781-393-2439, or email fnwaje at medford-ma.gov, per order, Adam Hurtubise, city clerk. would recognize vice president Collins, the chair of the planning and permitting committee.
[Zac Bears]: I think we do have to open a public hearing. First, I will recognize the Director of Planning and Development Sustainability, Alicia Hunt. And I do want to also just note that the Community Development Board did have one recommendation. There was a motion to recommend that the approval of the zoning amendments with the edit to move the number four superscript for the footnotes from the leftmost column to the parking column. And I will recognize Director Hunt.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Hunt and Planner Evans for being here. This time I'm going to open the public hearing to anyone in favor, opposed, or who has other questions about this item. Public hearing is open. Director Hunt, did I hear that you were in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Is there anyone else in favor, in opposition, or who would otherwise like to speak in the public hearing on these proposed amendments? Seeing none in person, I will review Zoom. Seeing none, this portion of the public hearing is closed. There was a motion from Vice President Collins to approve. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, that would be good.
[Zac Bears]: Second. On the motion to approve with adopting the recommendation of the Community Development Board by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none negative. The motion passes. Petitions, presentations, and similar papers, 24-406 petition for a common victor's license, Dave's Hot Chicken, CQ Chicken, Medford LLC. On file, we have business certificate, the petition, letter of compliance, state tax ID, workers' compensation, and it's been approved by treasurer, collector, building department, fire department, Police Department and Health Department has approved pending inspection. Is there a representative from Dave's Hot Chicken or CQ Chicken Medford present? If you could raise your hand on Zoom or stand in the chamber. And I will recognize Councilor Scarpelli, Chair of the Subcommittee on Licensing, Permitting and Signs. I'm not seeing, oh, here we go. We do have a representative, but I'll recognize you first, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I'm going to recognize Al Graziano, DHC, Dave's Hot Chicken. If you would like to share anything else about your petition, and then we'll hear from questions from councilors. Please give us an address for the report, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do you have anything you'd like to share about your petition?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any questions from members of the council? Seeing none, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, I have an affirmative, none a negative. The motion is approved. 24371, and then I'll recognize Councilor Collins. 24371 has been withdrawn by Councilor Scarpelli. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to take papers 24-415, 24-045, 24-410, 24-413, and 24-414 and join those for consideration and suspension of Rule 21, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: We're voting on a motion.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. We have five papers that have been joined for consideration. I will read those papers, and then we will hear a presentation from the mayor, and then we will hear questions from Councilors, and then we will hear public comment. The five papers that were just joined for consideration are 24-045, offered by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, fiscal year 2025 budget submission. dear president Bears and members of the city council pursuant to mass general law chapter 44 section 32. I respectfully request and recommend the city council approve the proposed fiscal year 2025 general fund budget as amended and water and sewer enterprise fund budget. Total submitted appropriation for all departments, including schools is 218,000,089. Account details are included within the budget presentation, which is available online at medfordma.org. Department, assessor, 2025 salaries, 432,856. 2025 ordinary, 156,927. Total request, $589,783. Legislative, total request, $312,689. Executive, total request, $673,270. Finance, total request, $854,314. Treasury, total request, $757,494. Law, total request, $530,036. Information technology, total request, $357,366. Clerk, total request, $406,364. Elections, total request, $327,435. Licensing commission, total request, $5,800. Conservation commission, total request, $7,500. Planning development and sustainability, total request, $819,207. Community Development Board total request $9,200. Board of Appeals total request $12,500. Historic District Commission total request $5,000. Historical Commission total request $35,000. Cable total request $208,424. Formal commission total request $5,400. Bicycle commission total request $1,500. Building department total request $1,031,543. Electrical total request $678,805. Facilities total request $1,838,745. Police total request $14,632,850. $1,263. Traffic supervisors total request $361,525. Traffic commission total request $30,500. Fire department total request $15,126,017. Civil defense total request $9,840. Parking department total request $951,741. Recreation Department $607,787. Medford Public Library total request $2,247,934. Chevalier total request $32,000. DPW Highway totaling $12,502,223. That includes the trash contract. DPW Cemetery totaling $1,118,050. DPW parks totaling $957,577. DPW engineering totaling $547,752. DPW forestry totaling $623,989. Health totaling $810,978. Council on aging totaling $277,157. human resources totaling $269,480, diversity equity inclusion totaling $118,502, veterans totaling $444,361, contractual agreements totaling $1,500,000, salary compensation study totaling $75,000, Workers' compensation totaling $788,000. Insurance totaling $28,274,939. Pensions totaling $16,281,536. Bonds and interest totaling $5,351,319. and education totaling $76 million for a total of $189,407,845 in the general fund. To meet these appropriations, the sum of $188,875,622.64 be raised and appropriated from the fiscal year 2025 tax levy and other general revenues of the city. that $75,700 be transferred from the sale of cemetery lots, that $239,115.65 be transferred from cemetery perpetual care funds, and $217,406.71 be transferred from casino mitigation funds. for the water and sewer enterprise fund. Water and sewer budget total request $26,937,511. Water sewer bonds and interest $1,743,644 for a total water sewer enterprise fund budget of $28,681,155. Further, that $28,681,155.00 be funded by anticipated revenue of the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Mayor Brianne Lungo-Koehn. So that's the budget. We have had seven budget meetings so far with the city departments, with our schools over the past several months. You can find the records of those meetings online and the discussions that we've had so far. I'm going to read the other three papers now. 24410, dear President Bears and members of the city council, in addition to a $76 million general fund appropriation for the school department, which I have submitted within the fiscal 25 budget, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body appropriate an additional $1,007,500.00 in American Rescue Plan Act funds for the fiscal 25 budget to stabilize the school department budget. These two appropriations, if approved, provide the school department with $77,750,000 to operate the Medford Public Schools in fiscal 25. Further resources could be directed to the school department in fiscal 25 and beyond if the city council votes to place an override question on the November biennial state election ballot and voters approve such a measure. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. 24-413 proposition two and a half debt exclusion order and ballot question for fire headquarters. Ordered that the city pursuant to general law chapter 59 section 21 C subsection K shall seek voter approval at the biennial state election to be held on November 5th, 2024 to assess taxes in excess of the amount allowed pursuant to general law chapter 59 section 21 C. for the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or certificates of indebtedness issued by the city to pay the cost of designing the project, equipping and furnishing the project, site improvements, and all other costs for a new fire station headquarters, and that toward that end, the elections department is hereby directed to notify the Secretary of the Commonwealth of the within vote of the city council to place the following question on the ballot for use by the city at the November 5 2024 biennial state election the question would read as follows shall the city of Medford be allowed to exempt from the provisions of proposition two and one half so-called the amounts required to pay for the bonds issued in order to pay the cost of constructing a new fire station headquarters to be located at 120 main street in Medford Massachusetts including the payment of all costs related to designing the project, equipping and furnishing the project, site improvements, and all other costs incidental and related thereto, yes or no. 24-414, proposition two and one half override order and ballot question for schools and DPW, order that the city pursuant to general law chapter 59, section 21C, subsection G, shall seek voter approval at the biennial state election to be held on November 5th, 2024, to assess taxes in excess of the amount allowed pursuant to general law section 21c for the general operation of Medford public schools and department of public works and toward that end that the elections department is hereby directed to notify the secretary of the commonwealth of the within vote of the city council to place the following on the ballot for use by the city at the November 5th, 2024 biennial state election. Shall the city of Medford be allowed to assess an additional $3,500,000 in real estate personal property taxes for the fiscal 2025 general operations of Medford Public Schools, $3 million, including but not limited to funding costs of teachers, literacy coaches, behavior specialists, administrative assistants, and nurse physicians, and for regular facilities maintenance. and for FY 2025 general operations of the Department of Public Works, 500,000, including but not limited to additional staff for road and sidewalk infrastructure repair for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2024, yes or no? The final paper is 24-415, proposition two and a half override order and ballot question to invest in future of Medford public schools, ordered that the city pursuant to general law chapter 5921C, subsection G, shall seek voter approval at the biennial state election to be held on November 5th, 2024, to assess taxes in excess of the amount allowed pursuant to General Law Chapter 5921C for the general operation of the Medford Public Schools, and that toward that end, the Elections Department is hereby directed to notify the Secretary of the Commonwealth of the within vote of the City Council to place the following question on the ballot for use by the City at the November 5, 2024 biennial state election. Shall the City of Medford be allowed to assess an additional $4 million in real estate and personal property taxes for fiscal year 2025 general operations of the Medford Public Schools to create a high school schedule that increases access to arts and vocational programming, expands classroom instructional opportunities, and for classroom teacher and paraprofessional compensation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2024. Yes or no? Thank you for bearing with me as I read all of those papers. I am now going to recognize the Mayor of the City of Medford, Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Mayor. We're going to go to questions from councilors. I am just going to say before that, I just wanted to return the thanks to you for your collaboration, establishing the budget ordinance, getting started on this process so early, having had all of our meetings happen before this meeting and not after this meeting. I think we've really opened a new era in an open process where we can have those questions and have the council be a part, a collaborative part of the budget process. So I just want to thank you for that. It's been a great few months, some long meetings, but a great few months. I'm going to recognize Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. As noted by Councilor Scarpelli, there was a motion to suspend the rules to take these papers and to suspend rule 21. Madam mayor, your response.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you mayor. Councilor Tseng, then Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I'm going to go to Councilor Callahan, Councilor Leming, Councilor Scarpelli, Vice President Collins. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Almost done. Almost done. We have two more hands raised. I'm going to councilor Scarpelli and then vice president Collins. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Just recognizing you, if you'd like to speak. I apologize.
[Zac Bears]: Please share your comments to the chair. I'm gonna go to Vice President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Councilor Leming and then I do have one question.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: One of the other benefits of streaming on YouTube is it's a lot easier to fast forward through the meeting. So if anyone wants to watch it later. My one question, and I hate to derail a wonderful dialogue and narrative, it's actually about the law department budget. And I just wanted to say, A, that I'm thankful to see the increase in the salary for the city solicitor position. I'm hopeful that with that competitive number, we'll finally be able to bring someone on. I know that position has been vacant for a while. The only other thing, it's kind of a question, feel free to respond to my comment, and it'll be the only one I make from the chair on this paper. Two years ago, we did agree to include an assistant city solicitor position in the budget that has been removed for this budget. We had a discussion with the chief of staff about it, and I understand the position, the difficulties, that money being essentially right now used to help to address the fiscal crisis that we're in in our schools. So I understand that. But regardless of our philosophical, potential philosophical difference on that, I do want to say that that is important to me, that the council has voiced that to be an important position and I am hopeful. if this package does move forward, that we can have further discussions, hopefully with a city solicitor hired at this new rate about potentially restoring that position in the future. So I just wanted to put that on record as that is something that we have talked about two budgets ago and is important and this council has raised as an issue.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you. All right. Any further questions from members of the council? Seeing none, we're going to go into public comment. People who would like to speak for public comment may line up at the podium here. They may raise their hand on Zoom. The mad rush begins. And we are going to be following the public comment rules laid out by the council. We will have three minutes for the first two hours of public comment. After two hours, we will go for one further minute. Sure, if they need to get home, that's all right. If we have a student here, someone who needs to get home, it is a school night, so we'll make a school night exception. But it'll be three minutes for each speaker for the first two hours, followed by one more minute. After two hours, we'll go to one minute. So please keep your comments as brief as you can. I will put a timer up on the board, but first we'll recognize our young person here. Welcome, thank you for being before us. If you could just say your name and then give your comment. Thank you so much for being here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Simon. All right, we'll go to the podium, name and address for the record, please, and then I will alternate with Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Zoom and then I'll come back to the podium. I'm going to recognize Chris Bennett on Zoom. Chris, you have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll just say two things. There's, I believe about 12,000 properties, residential properties in the city that are owner occupied. And the city council has not received a pay increase since 2016. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Jess H on Zoom. Jess, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: The tax exemptions that the state allows the city to charge and the override are separate issues. The city does have the maximum tax exemption for seniors, veterans, and the blind that is allowed by state law.
[Zac Bears]: It will apply the same way that the property tax applies to everybody.
[Zac Bears]: That's not legally allowed under state law.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Jess. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Sharon Diesso on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please, Sharon. You have three minutes. Sharon, I'm going to unmute you now. You need to accept my request.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Sharon. I'm going to go to Councilor Callahan. I just also want to note the school committee did not vote themselves to raise this council considered an adjustment of their compensation after 24 years of no increase. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Kanye. In addition to the exemptions, there's the deferral program, and there's also a senior tax work off program where some seniors come to City Hall and help out and have some of their taxes reduced. Go to the podium, name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Jen on Zoom. Jen, I'm going to unmute you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Going to go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Zoom. Bob Jones, Menford Fire Union Local 1032. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Jones, we don't have public minutes. They were not public meetings.
[Zac Bears]: The press releases issued by the financial task force contain a summary of the decisions that we made and the discussions that we had in those meetings, and they are available to the public on the city website.
[Zac Bears]: That is in the law department budget.
[Zac Bears]: It has the amount that he has budgeted for those. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: You can look available for prior years as well.
[Zac Bears]: I'll give you 30 more seconds, but just to answer the question, if you go on the city website and you go under mayor's office, the menu, there's a city budget page, and the city budget is there. And one thing we did request this year was to have an additional year of the actuals included, and the administration said that they did include that. There's a budget book available on the city website. And I'll give you an extra 30 seconds to answer.
[Zac Bears]: My understanding is that the owner's project manager for the fire station is finalizing the design. The debt exclusion vote authorizes the city to bond an amount up to the amount necessary, um, determined by the design. So, um, it is still being finalized. Uh, the financial task force estimated the highest amount of the bond would be about $30 million. Um, but I do know that there's still design considerations ongoing.
[Zac Bears]: Those were part of the press release. The total of all three is an estimate of $446 a year or about $42 per month.
[Zac Bears]: For the average single family home. Single family home.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Gannon. I can't speak for the school committee, I do see some school committee members here. I do know that the school committee has had to wait to schedule their budget meeting until we have an allocation before us and approved it. And my understanding of the 77.75 million, it's not the 79.4 requested by the school committee. But my understanding is that the intent is that if the overrides were to pass, then there could be supplemental appropriation recommended by the school committee to the council. And the override questions also would become active this fiscal year. So essentially, there's money for the first two quarters of the year and there potentially will be more money after that. That's just my understanding. I'm again, not on the school committee, but just to allay some of those fears beyond that, I do not know when the school committee is going to schedule their meeting or release a budget. But I do know that they had to wait for us to approve an allocation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Ken on Zoom. Ken, I'm gonna unmute you, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Munir on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: To the podium, School Committee Vice Chair Jenny Graham, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to the podium, and then I'll come back to Zoom, and then the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to Zoom, Jean Zotter. Jean, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Jean. going to go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. You're over your time. Thank you. Gaston, thank you. You're over your time. You're over your time. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Sir, I do not think you're benefiting your position by disrupting a public meeting and screaming at the public. I do not think you convince anyone with your outburst. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to apologize to everyone. Sam, if we could, there's just some noise and the kind of a tantrum in the rotunda. Sure. I'll give you an extra 15 seconds. Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Zoom. I have Barry Ingber on Zoom. Barry, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. And if you could just let me know, this means I don't have to read your comment.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to the podium. Name and address the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Derek Anderson on Zoom, then I'll come back to the podium. Derek, you have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Go to the podium, name and address the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to the podium. Name and address, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I would ask if you're going to have private conversations in the chamber, please take private conversations out into the rotunda so we don't disrupt people and so we can hear everyone equally. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Staying at the podium, we'll go to school committee member Aaron Olapade. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes, but I'm gonna give it to you starting now, because I'm still scared.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: That's just how many properties there are.
[Zac Bears]: We're over time, thank you. I can say a couple things on development and on Tufts University. We don't have the authority to stop Tufts University in many ways from doing what they do. They have exemptions that they, quite frankly, bought and paid for under the state law. Which one, sorry? The church, the church purchased that building. That's Vida Real is a church, so they purchased the building. We are working very hard on commercial and economic development. It is for profit, I believe. Thank you. I'm going to have to move us on to another speaker. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Thank you. That actually used to be nonprofit and is now for profit and is taxed. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. and address the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You have 30 seconds. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I've let you go. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I just want to respond quickly to that comment and I appreciate bringing it up. Part of this is about adding staff and DPW to address kind of the problem Anna was talking about earlier, trying to keep those B, C, and D roads from getting to an F grade where it costs that huge risk amount. And we are also working on, the administration is working on a comprehensive assessment on the water sewer system to assess the full cost of what it would take to bring us to a state of good repair. And we do have some reports on roads and sidewalks as well. where we will have to do more work on that. But yeah, the infrastructure is huge. And one of the other huge outstanding pieces is the fire headquarters being probably one of the two biggest facilities capital needs on the infrastructure side. So it is definitely, this whole package is probably 70% schools, 30% infrastructure, more work to come on that. Thank you for the comment. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I will say, I just want to thank you for the comment. And one thing this council has been doing is at the very least asking our state government to give cities and towns more authority or to take a bigger role when they with the power that they have. And we have three on Zoom. I'm gonna go to Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom. You have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Any member of the committee can request a division of the question.
[Zac Bears]: The paper for the general fund was about $189 million.
[Zac Bears]: The 190 includes more than just the property tax levy.
[Zac Bears]: There was 2.8 million this year. It was the highest amount in the last 20 fiscal years.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Tony Tanks on Zoom. Tony, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I have, uh, two people who have spoken already on zoom, and I also have two public comments to read. I'm going to read the public comments now. Um, Jessica Taddeo, 50 fells. You have mentored. I may to the members of the city council, the mayor and the public. I write to you today to express my support for proposition two and a half override and use of a free cash reserves to fund our schools, fix our infrastructure and provide mentor for the permanent support structure. I do not believe it as a generalization to claim, and a majority of residents were shocked and appalled to see potential outline cuts to various programs. And as one of those residents, I believe wholeheartedly that this is the only solution to these problems we face. I ask that you use the city's free cash as a short-term solution so a budget that funds all necessary programs can be passed by this council. The free cash is meant for emergencies and this is without a doubt an emergency. I believe the use of these reserves are a necessary step prior to a vote taken by the public regarding a debt exclusion and override. I've spent a lot of time talking to voters over the last four months, and many of them are quick to voice their concerns over funding for the schools and the state of our infrastructure. These are the two biggest issues for residents in my eyes. This seems like a perfect fix. I believe that with a coordinated effort, strong message, and open dialogue, Many residents would be in support of any measure taken that promises a strong school system. I am a product of Medford Public Schools, and I am endlessly grateful for the education and support I received. It is important to me that future generations of students receive the same support, programs, and opportunities my classmates and I enjoyed, specifically fostering a performing arts program. Research shows that those involved in art, performance, music, and dance are smarter, better analytical thinkers, and bring a necessary perspective to more, quote, conventional disciplines. Additionally, these spaces are refuge for many children seeking communities and way to express themselves. The proposed cuts are daunting and I believe that 7.5 million as a minimum for an override would set up younger generations for a future of success, knowledge and creativity. Opponents of this will claim that supporters are squeezing money from working families, unfairly taxing residents, and that the city will not use the money responsibly. These opponents are the same people with the loudest voices expressing concerns about our schools, roads, potholes, and lack of services for residents. To opponents, I say, no matter your politics or views on the city finances, a strong foundation for future generations is paramount to any political or financial concerns in the present. To opponents, I say these resolutions are proof that your elected officials are listening and helping. I implore you to consider a budget that allows our schools to flourish for decades to come. The time is now to fix this longstanding issue. Thank you. And I have from Ken Kraus, 50 Mystic Street. Dear Medford City Council members, I am part of a demographic that might be expected to oppose tax overrides such as the ones being proposed for the November ballot, a senior citizen with no children or grandchildren in the Metro Public Schools on a fixed income and with new and increasing medical bills and other expenses. But in fact, I am 100% in favor of this measure being approved to appear on the November ballot, where I'll be eager to vote for it. Simply put, the city of Medford, the cost of business continues to go up, just like my plumber does when costs increase, it is reasonable to ask the paying customer to pay more for services. It has never been more clear than during the current budget process, especially regarding the schools, that we don't have enough revenue to cover the basic costs of running a high-functioning city, let alone major capital improvements such as a new fire headquarters or high school. It is appropriate for the city to examine how to increase revenue from each leg of the multi-leg stool of sources, including property taxes. True, in my 24 years as a Medford homeowner, our taxes have been low compared to neighboring communities, one of the many things that make Medford such an appealing place to live. Sure, everyone wants their taxes to be as low as possible, but a small increase in this segment by way of an override is a reasonable proposition and a good investment in helping the city bring its annual budget closer to where it needs to be to cover essential needs. residents should know that the city is working hard to increase revenue from the other legs of that stool as well. After a major decline in life sciences, sidelined several promising large projects, major commercial development projects have reemerged, including a $20 million makeover of former Century Bank building at 400 Mystic Avenue and large residential projects at 970 Fellsway and 280 Mystic Avenue. These and others to follow will be providing substantial commercial tax and other revenue to the city. The Mass Gaming Commission recently approved the city's current request of $1.04 million from its Community Mitigation Fund for 10 projects across the city, including $300,000 for improvements to Chevalier Theatre, the primary economic engine for Medford Square that has created tens of thousands of dollars in meal and hotel tax revenue for the city alone, not to mention jobs and steady purchases from a multitude of other Medford businesses. Those are just two examples I cite in response to people say the city is overburdening the residential taxpayer. Finally, I noted above, we're talking about the city covering essential needs such as robust education, that doesn't short-range departments such as the arts, and not that many things in the city could truly use help to make it thrive. Our city's departments are hardly bloated. For example, Somerville, albeit a bit larger city, has 10 staff members for its arts council. The Medford Arts Council has zero staff members, and the council's volunteer members do not even receive a stipend for serving. just think how much stronger this important community asset both in terms of quality of life and its significant economic benefit to the city could be with just one staff member rather than the city relying almost completely on volunteers such as those with cache west medford open studios medford porch fest etc to put on more than 1 000 events you'd see 1 000 events a year almost totally on their own Last, the city must be able to offer competitive wages in order to attract top quality employees. Many city hiring managers will tell you about strong candidates who are lost to other municipalities, not to mention the private sector due to higher salary offers. The city needs more revenue to provide residents with the best possible staff and best possible services. I strongly urge the city council to vote in favor of putting three proposed tax overrides on the November ballot. And thank you for all your hard work in bringing forward these vitally important measures. Sincerely, Ken Kraus, 50 Mystic Street, Medford, Massachusetts. Pursuant to the new rule, I'm gonna go for one minute to Jess H, and then one minute to Sharon Deeso. Jess H, you have one minute, name and address. Well, you've already given your name and address. Just confirm that you're Jess Healy.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, can you restate the question one more time?
[Zac Bears]: There is a proposal before the Community Development Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals for a substance use clinic on Salem Street. The Zoning Board of Appeals is the final decision maker on that proposal.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, and they have a Community Development Board in a zoning board meeting, I believe on June 25th and June 26th to consider that application for a special permit.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Sharon Diaso. Sharon, you're going to have one minute if you could just confirm that you are Sharon, and then I'll give you one minute for a special permit.
[Zac Bears]: Sharon, you're going to have one minute if you could just confirm That you are sharing and then I'll give you one.
[Zac Bears]: Sharon, if you could meet your TV and then I'll unmute you.
[Zac Bears]: You have one minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, as Councilor Collins has moved to divide the question, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll to divide the question. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none negative. The question is divided. I did want to note before we move through. The mayor did submit slightly amended versions of these papers. Those were the versions that I read prior to this. I did have a suggestion if a motion could be made. I believe there is a copy edit error in 24414 and 24415. If we could strike the words FY 2025 before general operations. If folks need a second to review that. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: It's in the question.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it would just be before the words general operations.
[Zac Bears]: Then it would be for both, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'll be happy to second. On the motion of Vice President Collins to amend 24414 and 24415 to strike the phrase FY 2025 before the word general operations in the question language, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's a copy edit to the question language on 24414 and 24415. The question states for the FY 2025 general operations and then also states for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2024. So it would just be removing the duplicative FY 2025 general before the words general operations.
[Zac Bears]: for everyone's edification. Fiscal year 2025 is the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2024. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, that was my understanding. OK, great. I just wanted to make sure we were doing the same thing. Thanks for all the questions. And that's how the clerk has it as well. Great. On that motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative one in the negative. The motion is amended. Is there a motion on the consideration of 24413, the two and a half dead exclusion order and ballot question for fire headquarters, as amended by the Mayor Vice President.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's the affirmative. One of the negative. The motion passes. Is there a motion? Vice President Collins on 24414 the proposition to an F override order for ballot and ballot question for schools and DPW as proposed and amended by the mayor. Motion to approve second and as further amended by the council. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Great. On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Cook, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. On 24415, offered by myself and Vice President Collins as amended by the council, Proposition 2.5 Override Order and ballot question to invest in future Medford Public Schools, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. It is the motion of Vice President Collins to approve seconded by Councilor Kelly.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative one of the negative the motion passes on 24410 offered by the mayor as amended by the mayor to use ARPA one time funds of $1.75 million to stabilize the school department budget for fiscal 25 vice president. Motion to approve the motion of Vice President Collins to approve as amended seconded by Council is our Oh, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one negative, the motion passes. And on 24045, the fiscal year 2025 budget submission offered by the mayor as amended by the mayor, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. So with that, the council has advanced the three questions with the assent of the mayor to the secretary of the Commonwealth, uh, for consideration by the voters, November, 2024 ballot. Uh, and we have advanced a one-time fund stabilization for the schools and the city budget for fiscal 2025 has passed. Onto the next. 24-404 offered by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, request for a food truck permit for chicken and rice guys. June 15th, 2024. Can we take this one out of order to just get it done?
[Zac Bears]: Motion, the rules are, can we?
[Zac Bears]: They were suspended, great. On behalf of the below food entity, I respectfully submit to the city council the following request for a food truck permit for the city of Medford. In addition to city council approval, vendors are required to adhere to the health department food safety requirements. This is for Circle the Square, food truck of chicken and rice guys at Circle the Square on Saturday, June 15th. Any discussion? Is there a motion? Council Vice President Collins. The motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have a motion passes. Vice President Collins, I'm gonna ask you to take the chair. 24-412. resolution to recognize and discuss the Stop the Sigma campaign in relation to our neighbors with substance use disorder, whereas substance use disorder is a recognized disease by the medical community, and whereas in 2023, Medford was home to 403 individuals with active prescriptions for buprenorphine and medications as a treatment for opioid recovery. And whereas buprenorphine and methadone are lifesaving medications to treat substance use disorder and are effective at treating opioid dependence. And whereas between July, 2022 and June, 2023, Medford was home to 22 individuals who died for reasons related to substance use disorder. And whereas in 2018, 16% of individuals with a substance use disorder did not seek treatment because they were worried it would have a negative impact on their employment and approximately 15% 15% felt it would impact their community's view of them. And whereas a disease is not a moral failing now, therefore be it hereby resolved that the Medford City Council recognize that all Medford residents are deserving of care and respect, regardless of their medical disability or disability status, be it further resolved that when we speak of the services we can offer our residents, we do so while offering the utmost dignity to all people at all times. Council Luzardo.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I just want to thank my fellow Councilor for putting this item on the agenda, bringing up some very important issues. And I think we all know how much the opioid crisis has impacted our community. Such a serious, serious issue. And, you know, whether it's meant for overcoming addiction or our prevention and outreach office or just the sheer amount of work that so many people in this community have done to do harm reduction and also try to just save lives. I think it's important that we acknowledge that, you know, yes, it's a difficult issue. Yes, it's tough. But that There are people and families in our community who have been so deeply affected by substance use disorders and people in our community. I mean, I have been to funerals of people I went to school with in Medford, at Medford High School, who maybe if our society thought about these a little bit differently or spoke about these issues a little bit differently, would have gotten the help that they needed and they'd be alive. So for every statement that is made that I can understand fear and concern, but I think that humanizing these human beings in our community and these human beings in our, whether they're just in Medford or they're around the region, it's important for us to do that. And I see that as the intent of this resolution. So I thank you for putting it forward.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to note one thing. I misspoke on the dates of the meetings. It's not the 25th and the 26th. It is June 26th, Community Development Board, June 27th, Zoning Board of Appeals. My apologies.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I mean from the negative motion passes to 4416 offered by President President Vice President Collins be resolved that the member city council recognize and celebrate Caribbean American Heritage Month Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Tseng. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Any Councilor Tseng any further comment? Seeing none, just want to acknowledge this is a month, a heritage month that is acknowledged and created by the federal government under presidents of all parties, congresses of all parties, and has been around since the early 2000s. So it is just another great thing to celebrate. And thank you to all of our residents from Caribbean American communities who make up a wonderful part of the tapestry that is on the motion of vice-president Collins to approve seconded by Councilor Tseng Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I mean, from a negative motion passes public participation. Anyone want to talk about anything they want? I believe Cheryl Rodriguez had a petition on, but I believe that she spoke under the prior item. So with that, is there anyone who would like to speak in public participation in the chamber or on Zoom? Please come to the podium in the chamber or raise your hand on Zoom. I do see Mr. Castagnetti. Mr. Tanks, I'll recognize Mr. Castagnetti. Public participation, is there anything that you'd like to? Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I do see a hand for Tony tanks. Tony name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Appreciate it. Thank you. Sure. All right. Is there a motion on the floor? Motion to adjourn on the motion of vice president calls to adjourn seconded by council is arm. It's clear. Please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: No five minutes over to the negative motion passes the meeting is adjourned. Thank you all and good night.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council, 11th regular meeting, May 28, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. Meeting is called to order. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Before we start, we're going to give a citation based on a vote we took at a prior meeting. I'm going to read out the citation. The Medford City Council takes pleasure in awarding this council commendation to former Council President Richard F. Caraviello on the honor of being named the 2024 Medford Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the Year. Your long-time commitment to the City of Medford, the Medford City Council, our residents, and the local business community makes you an outstanding Citizen of the Year and a valued member of our community. Respectfully offered by Zach Bears, Council President, and George Scarpelli, City Councilor.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Tseng. Councilor Collins?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Would you like to say anything? You can come up. You can come up. You might have to press the button. A light should come on. No?
[Zac Bears]: There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Welcome back.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Rick. Take a picture. 24-365 resolution to recognize and celebrate Jewish American Heritage Month. Be it resolved that the City Council recognize and celebrate Jewish American Heritage Month. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the motion of Vice President Collins seconded by Councilor Tseng, any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public? Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. Any further discussion? Seeing none, on the motion. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24-368, offered by Councilor Tseng. Be it resolved that the City Council recognize and celebrate Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? All opposed? Motion passes. Is there a motion to suspend the rules to take paper 24-372? on the motion of Councilor Tseng to suspend the roll to take paper 24-372, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? It's under suspension. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24-372 offered under suspension by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the City Council acknowledge our U.S. military personnel who died while serving our country in recognition of Memorial Day and thank them for their ultimate sacrifice in protecting our country's freedoms. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further discussion? Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? Seeing none, I want to thank Councilor Leming for speaking on behalf of the council at yesterday's Memorial Day Remembrances and thank everyone who participated. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. The records, records of the meeting of May 14th, 2024 passed to Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Lazzaro, how did you find the records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to approve the records of May 14th, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Reports of committees. Is there a motion to join, describe, and then approve? On the motion of Councilor Callaghan, to join the reports and committees, followed by a brief synopsis, and then approve. seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor. Opposed? Motion passes. 24-045 offered by Council President Bears committee the whole budget May 14, 2024. This was our fifth preliminary budget meeting, we discussed several departments, same with our Committee of the Whole, May 15, 2024. and our Committee of the Whole, May 21st, 2024. 24-073 offered by Councilor Leming, Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, Listening Session Subcommittee, May 15th, 2024. Councilor Leming?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. 24-025 offered by myself, administration and finance committee, May 21st, 2024. This is a meeting to discuss the commercial vacancy tax and commercial vacancy issue. Paper remains in committee. 24-351, 24-354, resident services and public engagement committee, May 22nd, 2024. Councilor Leming?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. And 24-033, Planning and Permits 2024, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. On the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? We'll go that way. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24-370 offered by councilor Tseng. City Council is under the refer to committee for further discussion resolution to create a residence guide to City Council position processes being resolved with the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, create and publish a short guide in English and commonly spoken non-English languages to the City Council for residents to understand the City Council, its procedures and its processes. Councilor Tseng on the motion to refer to resident services and public engagement, seconded by? Seconded by Vice President Collins. Do you want to give a short?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the motion.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins to refer to Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins... and I would ask, please, if you're having private conversations, please take them out in the hallway. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion to suspend the rules, take paper 24-366 out of order by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24-366, request for appropriation, Community Preservation Committee. May 23rd, 2024, to the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council, Medford City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts 02155, regarding Community Preservation Committee appropriation request. On behalf of the Community Preservation Committee, I respectfully request and recommend that your Honorable body approve the following recommendation of the Community Preservation Committee. requesting the appropriation of $5,000 from the CPA General Reserve to Trees Medford and the Department of Public Works Forestry Division to conduct an inventory of trees in city parks. The project will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund. The CPC recommendation letter is attached and incorporated. CPC Chairperson, CPA Manager, Teresa DuPont and a member of Trees Medford will be in attendance to answer questions. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor.
[Zac Bears]: Amanda, if you could raise your hand on Zoom. And once again, I please ask if you're having a private conversation, please take it out in the hallway. Please, if you're gonna keep talking, thank you. There's people talking in the back.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not seeing Amanda.
[Zac Bears]: And I'm happy to read the funding recommendation letter if you'd like. Funding recommendation decision, May 14, 2024. Applicant name, City of Medford Forestry Division. Co-applicant name, Trees Medford. Public tree park inventory on May 14th, 2024. The City of Medford Community Preservation Committee, CPC, voted six to zero to zero to recommend to the City Council that Trees Medford and Medford's Forestry Division be awarded $5,000 to conduct a citywide inventory of all public trees in city-owned parks. In reaching the decision, the CPC found that the project meets the CPA objective of preserving and restoring city-owned recreation spaces. Any further questions by a member of the Council? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there a motion on the floor? On the motion approved by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Callaghan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 7 in the affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. Thank you, Theresa.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. 24-364, petition for a common victualler license, the Great American Beer Hall LLC. On file, business certificate, petition received, letter of compliance received, state tax ID received, workers' compensation pending, treasurer, collector, building department and fire department pending final approval, police and traffic impact pending final approval. and Health Department pending final approval. We do have the petitioners before us, just a little context. We are, I think the intent is to move forward here on a conditional common victualler license pending all of the approvals listed as well as the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. And with that, I'm happy to turn it over to Councilor Scarpelli or the petitioners.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further questions? by members of the council for the applicant before we move ahead. Seeing none, I'll just say we also know we've received the application for a special permit that has to go through the advertising process, so likely there will be on the meeting of June 25th, we will have you back to talk about that. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve the common victualler's license conditional on the pending approvals listed here, as well as the occupancy permit, and do you also want to do a review?
[Zac Bears]: A 30 60 day review upon opening, so we'll hear from everyone. And if there's issues, we'll have you back to talk about it. Um, so the motion is to approve conditional on the pending approvals as well as the occupancy permit and 30 and 60 day review upon opening.
[Zac Bears]: Great. On that motion by Councilors Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 7 in the affirmative, none negative. The motion passes. Thanks, you guys.
[Zac Bears]: We'll see you in a couple weeks.
[Zac Bears]: Good luck. 24-359 offered by Vice President Collins. Resolution to hear an update from the Brooks Park Tenant Associations. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council hear an update from representatives of the Brooks Park Tenant Association on the status of their tenancies and efforts to negotiate with their property owner. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please. You're good.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it's on.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I invited them. They did not respond.
[Zac Bears]: They didn't even have a conversation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Name an address for the record, please?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes, just if I could give some context, we were working intensely to try to have an affordable housing nonprofit purchase this property instead of the for profit developer. Sadly, the city does not have available funds in an affordable housing trust, which we just created this past year. But you know, If there had been those funds available to make the difference between the offer from this for-profit developer who wants to kick everyone out versus the affordable housing nonprofit that wanted to work with everyone so they could stay, that's one of the efforts that we've put under. If the for-profit developer happened to be charged a transfer fee and the affordable housing developer was exempt from that, maybe that would have been the difference. And of course, this council has proposed several items related that have been discussed around addressing this issue of these large corporations buying buildings and apartments that people live in and call their home and kicking them out and turning it into a profit center. So we will continue those efforts because it's important. This isn't the first time we've seen it. This isn't the first tenant association. I see a friend right here to talk about their experience with another tenant association in another building where this happened. It's not the first. It won't be the last. And the people it hurts are our neighbors and our friends. So we're working on it. We need more resources, and we need more policy tools. We need the state to give them to us, and we need more funds to make the city a real actor in this field. So just wanted to put that out there. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comments from members of the public, either in person or on Zoom?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Please take private conversations out in the hall. There's just kind of some whispers and conversations happening. If you're going to talk, please take it out in the hall and respect the people who are speaking and respect this public meeting. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: So you just have to come a little closer to the microphone. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're going to go to Eileen Lerner on Zoom. Oh, I'm not a co-host. Somebody ask Eileen to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Name and address for the record, please, Eileen.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Eileen. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Vice President Collins. Councilor Leming?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Leming. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just want to put out a couple of things. I think if we're talking about unity, we're talking about all agreeing, but we're also talking about misinformation. The proposals that have been put forward when we talk about the someone in their home, they're on a fixed income, they're scared, they live in their home, they live in a single family or two family or three family that they're afraid of these proposals that we're proposing. The next sentence out of everybody's mouth needs to be, all of these proposals exclude your house. We're not going after one, two, and three families. We're not going after owner occupied. So when we talk about misinformation, that's the misinformation.
[Zac Bears]: No, no point of information. No, no, it's point of information.
[Zac Bears]: When I'm done, thank you. So that's the facts. Those are the facts. So we're all talking about unity here. We're talking about we agree that large corporations shouldn't come in and buy large multi-unit buildings and kick everybody out. Great, so you support the proposals that we have on the table around the rent stabilization that says that and the transfer fee that says that? Because that's what you all say.
[Zac Bears]: That's what you all say, sir. So that's the information.
[Zac Bears]: No, we've answered that question. We've answered that question.
[Zac Bears]: It's not.
[Zac Bears]: Just false information.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: We have. That's every email response to every email I've received. The demands are shifting, sir, because the demands were don't move it at all. You're moving too fast. And now the demands are we're moving too slow?
[Zac Bears]: I can't count. I can't count which demands to meet. Vice President Collins, Councilor Leming, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Thank you. Councilor Leming?
[Zac Bears]: Please, please, please do not...
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: direct your comments to the chair. There are people who, when they don't pay their property taxes, they're foreclosed upon. That is something that happens.
[Zac Bears]: There is an option for property tax deferments, yes.
[Zac Bears]: It depends. I mean, if they're not taking that policy out, and then they're not paying their taxes, all people are who do not pay their property taxes...
[Zac Bears]: What are you saying? It's a rampant problem? There's hundreds of people a month?
[Zac Bears]: It's not an eviction, it's a foreclosure, so we want to be factual.
[Zac Bears]: And that happens, there are cases where that happens.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think anyone's saying that it's equivalent, but I don't think this is.
[Zac Bears]: We're not gonna engage in dialogue. Finish your comment, and we're gonna move on.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment.
[Zac Bears]: You can't respond, Matthew, please.
[Zac Bears]: Please sit down. Thank you. We're gonna go to Munir Germanus on zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Susan Girard on zoom name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Andrew, please point your camera up.
[Zac Bears]: 20 years ago, we would have a big TV3 argument about that. Mr. Castagnetti, we will allow you to speak but your video is off. And staying off.
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the public? Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, I'm just going to add one other thing, which is we could, and this was an initiative of, oh, I'll go to you, Mr. Merritt. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: All taxable property.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: That has happened. It's been ruled illegal and it's something that this council is working very diligently.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and that's not a good law.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Merritt, we've entertained a very long comment here. Would you like to continue close up a wrapping up point?
[Zac Bears]: I think we've been very clear about our position.
[Zac Bears]: We're not going to have a debate about who comments what on Reddit. We're just not going to do that.
[Zac Bears]: Who's demonizing homeowners? You're inferring something that no one is saying. Really? You're inferring something that no one is saying.
[Zac Bears]: No, people are interpreting things because they're being misinformed.
[Zac Bears]: We are considering, you just said it, the city does not generate enough revenue to fix what it needs to fix. We are considering generating revenue to fix what needs to be fixed.
[Zac Bears]: What would you cut, Mr. Merritt? What would you cut? 10 teachers, 10 firefighters?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Merritt. Thank you for your time.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Merritt.
[Zac Bears]: I would suggest, I can't make a motion, would anyone like to make a motion to request that Charlesgate and the property owner negotiate with the tenants?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming to send a letter to Charlesgate and the property owner to request that they negotiate with the Tenants Association. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: The request is from the tenants association. They would like to open negotiations. So I think we can send a letter on behalf of the council that we would request that the property owner respond to their tenants and enter negotiations.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you on the further amendment of Councilor Scarpelli to request that the mayor use her executive power to assist these tenants?
[Zac Bears]: Did you want to this this mediation thing to be an amendment?
[Zac Bears]: So let's make that a B paper to refer a new paper to committee to request a discussion about funding a mediation service. On the B paper, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Oh, is there a second on the B paper? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. On the motion to send a letter to the property manager and property owner, request they enter negotiations with the tenant association and to request that the mayor use her executive authority. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24-367 Zoning Update Project Proposed Amendments to the Medford Zoning Ordinance Package 1. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we refer the following recommendations for amendments to the Medford Zoning Ordinance to the Community Development Board as reported out of the Planning and Permitting Committee. 1. Amending the format of the table of use and parking regulations to replace the parking and loading code columns with specific parking and loading requirements. 2. Amending Section 94-12 definitions to add new defined terms and revise existing definitions. 3. Adopt a new GIS-based digital zoning map. Adoption of the new map format is not intended to result in any material changes to the zoning of any parcels within the City, but is intended to be applicable to the City regarding the existing zoning designation for all properties in the City. 4. Exempt municipal uses from certain requirements of the Table of Use and Parking Regulations and the Table of Dimensional Requirements. The recommended changes are attached and can be referred to informally as Package 1 of recommendations from the City Council and Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability's Zoning Update Projects with Innes Associates, Council Paper 24-033. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to refer to the Community Development Board, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 7 in the affirmative, none in the negative. Motion passes. 24-369 resolution request an update on the creation of a community liaison position for the Asian American community. Be it resolved that the City Council ask the City Administration for updates on plans or possibilities to create a community liaison position for the Asian American community in Medford, and ask how the Council can support these efforts. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? Councilor Lazzaro?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the Council? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve seconded by Councilor Callahan all those in favor. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 24-371 be resolved the city council review options and supporting the school committee budget for the resolve the city council review the mayor's presentation of budget needs. I'm going to ask Councilor Scarpelli, if you have an amendment to make this significantly more specific right now, I will certainly entertain it. If not, I think we're running afoul of a couple Massachusetts general laws here and entertaining the discussion of the paper. So if you could outline what all options in supporting the budget means, as in the form of an amendment, and if you could outline, review the mayor's presentation in the form of an amendment. After I hear the amendment, I'll decide whether or not to vote on it.
[Zac Bears]: is just on the second phrase, review the presentation. Is there any specific?
[Zac Bears]: Just, I want to define the amendment for Councilors, and then we can adopt the amended resolution, then we can consider it. So the amendment is to amend this resolution to be a specific requesting that the council request that the mayor appropriate 5 to 7 million in free cash as an appropriation before free cash is certified to fund the schools. And then also is it a motion to request the plan that outlined how she intends to spend the free cash reserves that she outlined on social media?
[Zac Bears]: Sounds like the free cash thing is re-amendable to having the discussion of the motion as amended, which is to request the mayor appropriate five to seven million in free cash. Okay. All right. On the amendment, are there any objections to the amendment?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming to table, is there a second?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Scarpelli...
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming to table, is there a second? Is there a second? I need a second, and it's undebatable. Second by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the role on the motion to table.
[Zac Bears]: No. Three in the affirmative, four in the negative. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: We don't have the answer when you free cash is certified. Once the end of the fiscal year happens, we have to wait for it to be certified. So it could be as three to nine months. So it would be certified between September, October, as late as April or May of next year.
[Zac Bears]: If an appropriation of free cash is not made by June 30th, it cannot be made until free cash is then certified.
[Zac Bears]: Up until certification, correct.
[Zac Bears]: Further discussion? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So we all agree. We all agree that the schools need five to seven more million dollars. So we talk about the facts. Those are the facts. We all agree. Now we appropriate them for free cash. It's just delaying the inevitable. We won't have any next year. We're just postponing the devastation until June 30th, 2020, doing exactly what we said we don't want to do, which is use one-time funds to, for whatever reason, have the thing. So we're having the same argument here. We agree that the schools need $5 to $7 million. If we appropriate free cash, then we postpone the discussion for a year. If we actually raise the money, then we have it in perpetuity. Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins. Thank you. Vice President Collins. I recognize Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I recognize Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: That's not true sir. You are literally... you're lying to the public.
[Zac Bears]: You don't. There's nothing. Order. Order.
[Zac Bears]: I'm actually not. Is there a motion to recess?
[Zac Bears]: Is there a motion to recess?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to recess. Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? 15 minute recess. On the motion of Councilor Collins to reconvene, seconded by?
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. President Bears. Councilor Leming, then Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming has invoked Rule 21 of the Medford City Council, which gives any city council the right to table any financial paper until the next regular meeting. Paper is tabled. Public participation. To participate out of zoom. Please email ahurtubise... Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: So this is a rule 21. Any financial paper placed before the council has to move on the table for until the next meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Public participation. To participate outside of Zoom, please email ahurtubise@medfordma.gov. Name and address for the record, please. Is the microphone on?
[Zac Bears]: There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address record, please.
[Zac Bears]: And I just wanna say, Mr. Geehan, for myself and Vice President Collins as well, We know the number. We're trying to find the short-term solution and the long-term sustainable solution. We're trying to get that as quickly as possible. We're working with the person who gets to make that decision, and that that's what is taking time right now. Our goal is to get it to as quickly as possible. My hopes are that the city, the public, the council, the teachers unit, and everybody will have a budget presented to them by the end of this week. And then we'll know more about what that means in the short-term and the long-term. That's my understanding of the timeline right now, but we are working diligently to try to get these funds to stabilize the school funding.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: This is open public comment.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Gonna go to Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom. Mr. Castagnetti, name and address for the record, please. Mr. Castagnetti, I'm gonna ask you to unmute. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I don't have an answer to that question, but we can look into it.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion by members of the public, either in person or on Zoom? Seeing none, is there a motion on the floor? On the motion to adjourn by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Throw in, I think the GIS zoning map as well.
[Zac Bears]: The wall is also the lot line, is what you're saying?
[Zac Bears]: All right.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just want to note, we do have kind of a time clock here. We have a bunch of other major stuff, and we've been spending a lot of time on things we've talked about already. I wanted to just echo what Vice President Collins suggested. If we could read through all the remaining definitions, if people could raise their flag on all of them, and then we can move on to the other items, that would be a preference of this councillor. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: And I would say that we have another Council meeting, another CDB hearing, and another Council hearing once again to belabor anything we want.
[Zac Bears]: Right now it says accessory. It's just an accessory and accessory structure. And this is just changing accessory to accessory use because it's not changing anything about accessory structure. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: just something that we've talked about is actually wanting to get hours out of zoning because having special permit requirements for hours is kind of just a strange way to go about it. So I think we'd want to have a kind of holistic discussion about moving hours to a general ordinance. And then maybe we could look at different hours for different uses along the lines of what Councilor Callahan just said.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to refer out the definitions to the regular California.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I report out the table of use and changes as well.
[Zac Bears]: Motion is to refer the table of use and parking regulations changes and the definitions changes to the regular meeting. We haven't discussed it yet, but you can throw this.
[Zac Bears]: The changes to the definitions. I'll add a third one, which is the GIS digital zoning map. We don't have to vote on it all right now, but those I think were the three things.
[Zac Bears]: Just to recenter where we are on the agenda now, an hour and 15 minutes in, we've talked about the table of use and parking regulations and the definitions. And the other 2 things we wanted to report out were the GIS zoning map and the municipal exemption from certain use and dimensional requirements. So, if we could, if anyone could speak quickly to the zoning map, I think that's a 2 minute. Explanation and then we could do the municipal.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just 1 kind of thing. Um, just a couple logistical things. Paula, could you send these slides if you have already? I apologize for missing it. I just want to upload. They get them uploaded. Uh, to our meeting portal, just if anyone comes back and wants to see them. Um, in terms of logistics, I have. a draft is something to put on the agenda for our meeting on the 28th, basically just saying it would come from the committee talking about these four items and referring them out to Community Development Board. And I used some of the language from the legal hearing notice that was drafted for the future meetings, but it's not a public hearing yet. It's just referring it out to CD for the public hearing. but can we get the actual like word document changes of the definitions the table of use and parking regulations uh the and the uh this municipal type plan review um can we get those by tomorrow so we can attach them to the agenda we have a an advanced agenda deadline because of memorial day holiday um so we need the agenda to go out by 4 30 tomorrow I'd like to have these attachments attached to it when it goes out if possible. Then I don't know, Alicia, if there's anything you feel like we need to attach for the GIS zoning map or any language that you'd want to use. If you feel like the language in the legal hearing notice is sufficient for a referral out, then I think we'd be fine there. But those are just some procedural things I want to make sure we have wrapped so that this all gets done tomorrow and gets on the agenda for Tuesday.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And feel free to use CC, Kit, Alicia, myself, the city clerk, and one of us will make sure it gets in the right place.
[Zac Bears]: So moved.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Maybe we should just amend my motion to also include the municipal site plan review.
[Zac Bears]: That's actually on me. 12th and 26th. It's the 19th.
[Zac Bears]: I have 12 and 26 on the.
[Zac Bears]: May 21 2024 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Present. None absent this meeting is called to order. There'll be a meeting in the Medford City Council Committee the whole at 7pm in the city council chamber second floor Medford City Hall 85 George B has to drive Medford, Massachusetts and by zoom. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss paper 24-045, the annual budget process for fiscal 25. This is preliminary budget meeting seven. This is the seventh preliminary budget meeting. The mayor has communicated the following departments will be present. The health department, Medford public schools, and the department of planning development and sustainability. We will be hearing first from the health department, and then we will go to the schools and planning and development sustainability, unless planning development sustainability makes it in time. So we will go first to you. Director O'Connor, welcome back. You feel free to sit if you'd like. And what I'm going to do, if you haven't been watching the Barnburner budget meetings we've been having, is I'm going to read the fiscal 24 budget, the fiscal 25 budget, any headcount changes, and then I'll go through the change sheet on the back, and then I'll turn it over to you to fill in anything that I missed, to share your narrative. And also, one thing we'd love to hear is if there's stuff that your department would like to be doing, that you didn't request in this budget that you are hoping to get in future budgets. That is definitely a priority of the council. We know it's a tough budget year, but we also know there's a lot of needs in the city that need to be met. So we'd love to hear that. But with that, I will start us off. We have Department 510, 519, that is our Board of Health and Animal Control. Fiscal 24 budget $776,510. Fiscal 25 proposed budget $806,185.93. The fiscal 24 headcount was 11. The proposed fiscal 25 headcount is 10. I believe that's a reduction of one part-time nurse. And the entire increase from fiscal 24 to fiscal 25 is a fixed cost growth increase. No new programs are being planned. This is an increase due to 2% non-union pay increases, step increases, and two employees who are fully funded through ARPA who are now going to be funded 50% through ARPA and 50% through the general fund. And those are offset again by a decrease in the part-time employees and some very minor changes in the ordinary expenses. And with that, I will turn it over to you, Director O'Connor. Welcome.
[Zac Bears]: One second. The microphone may not be on. Are you seeing the light? It's green. It is on? Okay, good. Yeah. Sorry about that, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for saying any further questions by members of the council. So you know, I have two. Number one, could you say like, and it doesn't have to be exact, but approximately how much of the programming of the health department is grant funded?
[Zac Bears]: And is that grant funding stable and reliable? And I guess we love the prevention outreach work. We want to fund it. So how reliable and stable is the grant funding? And how much, you know, if you're thinking about if the grants were all gone tomorrow, how much of that would you want to bring on to the general fund so that we could keep doing it?
[Zac Bears]: So the opioid's pretty stable. The state funding for resiliency is, we have it for about three years, but we would need to have that renewed, otherwise that would go away. And then some of the grants are even shorter term than that. And this is probably a leading question, but I'm guessing you'd want to keep doing all of that. Yes, of course, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I appreciate just understanding that and understanding typically half of the work of our health department that we see isn't coming out of the general fund right now, which I think is a testament. I think finding those grants is great, but we're not talking about doing something a one-off. We're talking about things we want to keep doing. And sometimes grant funding doesn't always, isn't always there. So any further questions from members of the council for our director of the health department? Seeing none, are there any questions or comments by members of the public on the health department budget? Seeing no one in the room and no hands raised on Zoom. I think we're all set, Director O'Connor. Civil defense. We do have to do civil defense. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. The one thing I want to say also, if we do see a significant difference between what we talked about tonight and what we get in the budget proposal, not that we expect that, but if we do, we may invite you back here in June. This is a new budget process, and we've been really working hard with the administration to do things a bit earlier. That's why you're here in May, before we've seen the budget. You know, if the administration wants to have you back, or if you want to come back, or if we want you to come back, we could see you again in June. Sure. Civil defense, we have fiscal 24 budget, $9,390. Fiscal 25 budget, $9,840. And this looks like it is just an increase in the public safety supplies and the dues, conferences, and travel. And if there's anything else you want to share on that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further questions? Seeing none, any questions from members of the public on civil defense? Seeing none, I will just say up at the station in the Heights, there's some great civil defense stuff from about 1953. So if you want some old blood transfusion kits or 60 year old biscuits. Yeah, that was pretty wild to see. That was just, yeah. So, you know, didn't know about it. Hi, member of the public, do you want to comment on the health department?
[Zac Bears]: Sure, you can make a comment to me and it's up to the director. Yes. If you could let, yes, you can sit down and give your name and address for the record and happy to hear your comment. You can direct your comments to me and then we'll go back to the director.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, no, no, it's just, it's a formality. It's totally just technically all comments have to go through the chair.
[Zac Bears]: It does.
[Zac Bears]: So I can share a couple things and then the director, however you would like to share, You know, we have been working, the director shared a little bit earlier about road and control. Some things we've done is we've passed an ordinance a couple of years ago now. We require any new construction to have a pest management plan. We've been trying to build in more and more as much as we can on the road and control with the guidance and advice of the health department. Beyond that, that's really our role in it. Definitely director O'Connor is the person to talk to or the health office. It may behoove us if you have a minute to talk after the testimony, if that's all right with you.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Great. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. All right. Any further comments on the health department or civil defense? Seeing none, thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Go Celtics. Celtics won. I would. Wouldn't it be nice right here in the big screen? All right. Give me one moment. I want to see if we have Director Hunt. I think, sadly, we're not going to make it. PDS will go after the public schools. So next we'll hear from Metro Public Schools, our superintendent, Dr. Marice Edouard-Vincent, and our director of finance are here with us. We have some school committee members in the chamber and on Zoom as well. So excited to be here. It's a little different here. So for every department that we've heard up until this point, the city council, looks at line item budgets. For the school, Medford Public Schools, there's a different process, obviously, because there is a school committee. So what happened so far, the school committee has done its process of developing a budget along with the school administration. Last night, the school committee made a formal request to the city of Medford for an amount that is budgeted. The mayor will then allocate an amount for the Medford Public Schools and the City Council only has the authority to approve that amount or to cut that amount. We cannot increase it. We cannot approve the budget that the school committee requested last night. All we can do is approve or cut the mayor's request. So that's how the process works. I appreciate some of the outreach that we've gotten today asking us to approve the school committee's request that was proposed last night, but that's not how general law process works. So I just wanted to make that clear before we started. Um, that certainly doesn't mean that I think many of the people behind this rail certainly support the request of the school committee and support funding our public schools. So with that, I will turn it over to you, Dr. Edouard-Vincent. I just wanna very quickly, um, I could pull it up. Just note that the school committee requests the municipal government for fiscal 25 was $79,399,774. That's an increase from the fiscal 24 general fund request of $71,200,000. And with that, Madam Superintendent.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Jerry. So just before we go to questions from Councilors, I'm going to summarize once again the process here and some of the key numbers. There's a lot of great information. Really appreciate your presentation. So, the request by the school committee as of last night is 79.4 million let's let's round up by a couple hundred bucks. Now pursuant to the council's, the new city budget ordinance, I believe that the mayor provided an initial estimated allocation to the school system about in March. And that was 73.5 million. That was the initial estimate of what they believe the city could provide at that time. So that's a pretty big difference. It's almost $6 million between what was requested by the school committee and the initial estimate. I want to add just a couple more pieces of context. I believe the district, as you indicated in your letter, had proposed a $76.7 million budget, which changed the school committee recommended this full budget. That $76.7 million included the variety of potential cuts that you had determined and were discussed at the school committee earlier this month. Maybe it was end of April, but a few weeks ago. And I also know that the administration has been working to try to increase that 73.5 million through finding other essentially changes on other city departments. So, I just wanted to put that context in play, but really. What has been going around the community a lot has been a discussion of the initial kind of batch of proposed cuts, which got to that 76.7 million number, the school committee has requested the 79.4 million which would, I don't want to get into specific line items because we don't control that. to avoid many of those cuts if that $79.4 million was received. But the estimate was all the way down at $73.5 million. So we have essentially a $6 million need to avoid the cuts that have already been discussed, a $3-something million need to pass a budget that includes those cuts that were discussed. And then if it's below that $76.7, we're talking about finding even more cuts beyond what was discussed at the meeting earlier a few weeks ago. So I just wanted to put that context out there. And then again, procedurally, the school committee has made a request. We are hearing from you a description of that request we will receive in the official budget proposal by the mayor and allocation. And at that point, we can just approve or cut that total allocation to the school. So that really is the council's role in the process. And the mayor is the one who will propose the allocation. And it will be somewhere between the $73.5 million, which would require even more cuts that have been already discussed, and the $79.4 million, which would fully fund this request and wouldn't include the cuts you described. So if you have anything you want to add to what I just said, I'd appreciate the context. But I just wanted to kind of summarize where we're at.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Last thing I'm going to say before I turn it over to Councilors is just one added piece of context for the discussion. This Council, and I believe the administration, but the Council has persistently identified over multiple fiscal years a need for additional funding for all departments and our public school system. We have discussed the structural underfunding of the city of Medford, including Medford Public Schools. And last year, myself and former Council President Morell were able to negotiate an agreement that was publicly presented to the Council. to create a financial task force to work on creating the budget ordinance which we have passed along with a couple of other items and that financial task force has been meeting for several months. There was a public press release from the office of the mayor March 31st I believe talking about us our discussions to create a framework for a debt exclusion for the fire station and an override to address school funding as well as some street and sidewalk funding Those conversations are ongoing. The discussions around this budget have laid bare the need, and I am confident that with the additional discussions between myself and Vice President Collins, Mayor Lungo-Koehn, Chief of Staff Nazarian, and Vice Chair of the School Committee, Jenny Graham, that we can create a proposal and bring it to the voters to address the structural issue. One of our goals with that, as we're still doing research given this discussion, is to see how much of that can address the issues in this year's budget and how that would work. So I personally have been deeply engaged in those discussions. I have, since the first day I ran for office and before, been a strong supporter of the need for additional revenue to provide sufficient funding for not just our schools, but the city as a whole. So I just wanted to add that context to the table. We are still working on that. I wish we had an answer sooner than we have them, but that's where we're at. And my hope is that the outcome of those negotiations would be we're going to be putting something before the voters that would help address significant portion, if not most of this gap, so it will be up to the voters of the city of Medford, but I personally am confident in the voters that they want to fund our schools, too. So with that, I will go to Vice President Collins, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Lazzaro. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I am not. No. We've been meeting since September.
[Zac Bears]: We have requested information from city finance department staff as needed.
[Zac Bears]: If I could just very quickly, in terms of the scope and scale of the involvement of the council leadership and the discussions with the city administration, as I noted, we've been meeting Since September of 2023, I wouldn't say anything otherwise that there have been disagreements in that group about the scope and scale of our medias and what an overrider debt exclusion should look like. Through those meetings, we have narrowed that gap significantly. We have worked through the mechanisms available to us and our understanding of the immediate future. And that's how we arrived where we are today. One of the things we didn't know was what is new growth and what a local receipt is going to be. We didn't have that until the spring, right? So when it comes about the specifics, yeah, we've been working through that. I'm hopeful that we're going to get somewhere. Would I have liked to have gotten somewhere earlier? Would I have liked information to have been earlier, sure. But again, the council leadership met with the mayor last June. We publicly presented everything that was discussed. We made that agreement and the council voted to approve a budget based on those discussions. I understand you voted against it and I respect that. But we all agree, we agreed last year, we knew we were going to be in a very tough place. with one time funding, ARPA and ESSER included. So, you know, I appreciate the Councilor's perspective. I understand that there's always room to do more, to be earlier, to have more information out there. But I do want to say that Council leadership has been working diligently on that issue. the administration and as I said earlier, I'm confident that we will find an answer that this community can rally around and support to make sure that our schools get the funding that they deserve.
[Zac Bears]: It might not be true. How the process works, once an allocation is made by the mayor and once a budget is approved by the council, the school committee then has to reconcile the difference between the budget they requested and whatever the allocation is. So if the budget they requested is not met, then there would still be a need for
[Zac Bears]: And I think the answer to that, I don't think we're talking about each other. The answer is the school committee has to vote on what the final budget is.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, yeah. I mean, I think that if you, did you like to try to answer it a different way, Madam Superintendent?
[Zac Bears]: And I appreciate that. Listen, I understand- Jerry, when you say cut, you mean it's in that batch of proposed cuts? Yes. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: So I appreciate it, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: we uh there it's like a graduated uh reimbursement rate so it starts out higher and it gets gradually lower it's 180 60 zero yeah four years and jerry was basically dead on uh it was 8.6 million sending last year and 1.6 million reimbursed so yes seven million of chapters is here tonight so
[Zac Bears]: I would like to request my fellow Councilors please not engage in cross-talk. And also I'd like to add to the meeting record if we could request an update on the Petrangelo fund balance from the Finance Director.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. As one Councilor, I'd just like to reiterate, Councilor Collins and I proposed an override of $12 million in 2022 because we knew the structural underfunding of our city. That was tabled by a rule that then pushed it past the deadline and made it moved by another Councilor at the time. and fiscal 23 and 2023 for fiscal 24. We proposed, uh, to three charter amendments, which would have we felt better address the budget process. Um, those were passed by 6 to 1 margin, but we're not submitted to the state House. Mayor did not want to move those forward. And again, I think Many of the elected officials in this community were elected because they clearly messaged the reality of structural underfunding of our schools and our city departments. We know there is not enough money to do the job. The reason there is not enough money, piece of it, is that we've never done an override in 44 years. Piece of it is we don't have as much development as fast as scale as we want, right? I'm not saying that those answers can't both be true at the same time. But we are where we are. And 1 of those things takes 5 to 10 years. 1 of those things takes much less time. Um, and we believe can actually affect this fiscal year. Um, in the future, I mean, again, we've been, we've spent what meeting are we on Councilor Collins meeting? No, no, maybe 7 for the budget. But what meeting are we on the zoning? five of this term and we did a whole zoning recodification last term and we've approved multiple plan development district projects that have come before this council because this council has been focused last term with a very different membership this term with a different membership on the idea that this community should grow and that growth needs to be an essential piece of our revenue strategy. So we're there. We have been pushing very hard as a council to have more resources in our finance to budget department so that we have more transparent and open budget planning so that our schools and our city finance departments are not so strapped that they're so worried about the next two weeks that we can't think about the next two and 20 years. So that's work that we have been doing, and it's essential work. We are now at the point I was worried we would be when I saw the fiscal 21 budget in the first six months of COVID, which is a fiscal cliff. That means if we do not find revenue now, jobs lost. Now, without that new revenue, we can have a debate, and the council has a role, not on the school side about this, about who we want to fire. I don't think any of us want to have that discussion. We could find $5 million in the budget, but it's 50 people in the schools or 50 people somewhere else, basically. That's the position we're in now. And looking back at the past is not going to change that, although I do think we should look to the past so that we don't repeat the mistakes in the future. So I hope that we can all at least agree on the fact that we don't want to fire people. Any further discussion by members of the council on the mentor public schools budget Councilors.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for our Jerry. I appreciate you. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. With all due respect, I believe that we will have something for this council and the people of the city of Medford to consider that will include all the data that you're talking about. The presentations that you're talking about, that is the intent. Certainly, I was here two years ago, right? I think we should have been having that conversation two years ago. Councilor Collins and I put something forward to have that conversation. We are now in dire straits and we are having that conversation, but I believe that what we will present is fully scoped and has that information and everyone can get behind it because that's what we're talking about here. I've actually seen in the past two and a half weeks incredible unity among people who often disagree about the fact that the impact of the budget allocation versus the need of the schools would be devastating among people who don't often agree. I've had conversations, phone calls, emails, social media, all of that. So I believe we will get there. And again, I think the facts support both of the cases that have been made here. When you look at the new growth numbers, they go on DLS back to 2003. We're not talking about five years of lack of growth, we're talking about 40 years of lack of growth. But the last three years since we started our zoning conversation are the three highest in the history of the city. So we're making that work. We're talking about also on the override side, never done it in 45 years. So I agree with you, we need to do differently. This council, as I believe, including all of us, has been trying to change the tone on development and growth by updating the zoning recodification and implementing our zoning project, change the tone on budget by passing the city's first ever budget ordinance. And just speaking from the perspective of the financial task force, sometimes I feel caught in a catch-22 of, do we not say anything until we have everything fully baked so we can answer every question that you just asked, Councilor Scarpelli? Or do we say everything before we have any answers so that everyone sees every question we've had to ask? And I think it's, in many cases, an impossible choice. and also a choice that is not just the choice of myself and Councilor Collins, but of the group. So we're working on it. What you described is my goal, and I hope that I will be able to present to this Council exactly what you described soon, because I believe that is my responsibility and the faith entrusted in me by the members of the Council and elected me President and by the voters of the City of Bedford by electing me as a Councilor. So that is my goal. And with that, I'll go to Vice President Collins, and then we can hopefully go to members of the public. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Any further questions or comments by members of the Council? Seeing none, we'll go to members of the public. Thank you very much Madam Superintendent, Mr. Finance Director, much appreciated.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record please, feel free to sit and use the microphone. And if you're on Zoom and would like to make a comment, please raise your hand.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Ian. Any further comments by members of the public on the Metro Public Schools budget. Madam Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: We used free cash the year before, too. The year before, too? Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: That was how many through the Bs, five?
[Zac Bears]: We got through the Bs and that was five?
[Zac Bears]: Braintree's another one. We didn't even get through the Bs.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. Councilor Scarpelli, I was going to recognize you already as you had a point directed through me. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I'm going to take the spirit of compromise and just say a little bit about what I disagree with both of you about. And first thing I want to say here is I appreciate, but there are many staff in the city who do not live here the chief of staff was with us for four hours at fire stations on Saturday, came here. I don't question her devotion to serving the city, even though I may disagree sometimes. We have disagreements. We all have disagreements. I'll go first with just some additional context on the budget. I appreciate you adding that. Madam Chief of Staff, I just want to also add when you mentioned the $7 million FY23 gap of the one-time funds we used that year, that was a major driver of Councilor Collins's and my proposal for the override at that time. I do respect that we were able to not use one-time funds in future years, but also there were things cut between the initial FY23 proposal and then the final budget. That was presented to us because of that use of one time fund so that means that there were things that the city was doing and probably the schools, maybe as well, depending on the process a little different that we weren't able to do, because we were trying to reduce that reduction on one time fund so that's really where I think many of us are coming from on the structural underfunding. And then the other piece is I really appreciated you starting to list the overrides that all these communities are doing across the state because we do have a common financial fiscal issue across the Commonwealth and across the country with the ARPA expiration. We did use some one-time funds for FY 24 on the school side with ESSER. I know we are all aware of that, but that, you know, it wasn't a structural gap in the general fund, but it was a structural gap in a sense that we, you know, I remember June 21st, Councilor Scarpelli was talking about the 20th. On the 21st, I had an event and I said, we need to work together to keep as many of the ARPA and ESSER positions as we can on the budget. Mayor was present there as well. And work has been done. I mean, I am impressed, especially on the ARPA side, how much we're able to keep on. So I do want to acknowledge that. But I think the other piece of it, and it's not really a disagreement with anyone here, I think the other piece of this part of the fiscal issue that we are all seeing in commonality is cost growth. We are seeing huge over the last two years, a huge increase in costs that is devaluing the amount of revenue we have. When Councilor Leming talks about However, the last 45 years, because two and a half hasn't kept up with inflation, we have less money. That has accelerated over the last two years significantly. Councilman was using a CPI price deflator. That doesn't actually reflect government purchasing their price deflators for government because government purchases very specific things. not the things that a person, you know, we're not buying a lot of bread every day, necessarily, as a percentage of our budget or food. We're buying concrete, we're buying health care, we're buying, you know, pensions, and we're paying salaries, right? And those things have been going up really significantly. So that's just the other piece of context that I really think is important to add And when we talk about the fiscal picture of all these communities, and especially the reason why the override and the need for additional immediate revenue is so much more dire today than it was even two years ago, is that the costs are just out of control. And when costs are going up like that, government, we can't keep doing more with less. That's what we're seeing. If we want to, quote unquote, keep it tight in the belt more, Now we're not talking about, I believe Sherry said, working around the edges. We're talking about core programs of the city and schools. That's where we're at. Now where I just want to point to Councilor Scarpelli, we bring up Malden a lot. Malden gets $65 million a year in net revenue from the Commonwealth. Their Chapter 70 allocation is tens of million dollars more than us. They get $65 million, we get $20. Their new growth the last four fiscal years has been almost a million dollars less than the city of Medford. So it's not a comparable community. Malden is treated very differently by the state and isn't growing as much as we are on the new growth numbers. So, you know, I just wanna bring those facts to the table, that context to the table. And again, say that I really understand the frustration everyone has with the uncertainty, understand the frustration of the public, of our educators, of fellow members of this council, of members of the school committee who are not part of the financial task force, where we have not said this is our plan yet. And we have not presented a plan and had that debate yet. It is coming very soon. We are at the zero hour. We are at the decision point. And I believe that we will present something that we can all see the details of, have those details discussed and debated, and then bring this community together to vote for in the fall to say that we're gonna address these serious financial challenges that we face. So I appreciate the perspectives of everyone. I think we've had a healthy discussion generally. And with that, Mr. President, I just have one new piece of information.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions or comments from members of the public? Seeing none in the chamber, I do see one hand on Zoom, Jess H. Jess, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: No, you will not be able to ask her questions directly. You can make comments. Generally, the mayor presents the budget at the budget meeting when the comprehensive budget proposal is submitted.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, there would be drastic cuts that would be devastating to our community.
[Zac Bears]: We would not have the funds to fund our schools.
[Zac Bears]: We've discussed extensively how Proposition 2.5 and cost growth has reduced what those funds can buy.
[Zac Bears]: Um, there's the mayor and the financial task force have announced a proposal to do so. Yes, and we plan to put out the details as soon as possible.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments from members of the public in the chamber? Seeing none, I will go to Charlene Douglas. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Ms. Douglas. I just want to say that it is my highest priority as council president that any proposal for an override or a debt exclusion has all the information needed and that there is the, obviously there is the public process to propose one, there is the public vote, but that is the work that we are doing and I intend to continue doing. And I'll leave it at that. Any further discussion on the Medford Public Schools budget by members of the council or members of the public? Seeing none, Planning Development Sustainability, Director Alicia Hunt. I don't know if you've been watching our previous six meetings, and thank you, Madam Superintendent, Mr. McHugh, once again, and all the residents watching, we are working on this. We have basically our processes that I'm going to read the top lines for the overall budgeted amount and the headcount, and then read through the change sheet, and then we would love for you to share, fill in any gaps, share your budget narrative, and also we would love to hear about Items you did not request are not included in this year's budget request that you plan or would like to see in the future. We understand it's a difficult budget year, but we do want to hear about what we are not doing right now that we would like to be doing. So with that, I will go through quickly. Planning and Development Sustainability Fiscal 24 Budget $779,084. Fiscal 25, $812,897.91 for an increase of $33,813.91. There's a change in head count from eight to 11. That is two part-time interns and that part of the full-time climate planner is moving from a grant to the general fund. And basically all of that is fixed cost increase with the COLA for non-union positions, moving over that climate planner position and some increase for maintenance and dues and subscriptions. So with that, I'll turn it over to you, Director Hunt, for the Planning Development and Sustainability Budget.
[Zac Bears]: So you shifted 10 and cut 20?
[Zac Bears]: Anything new you'd like to do that's not in here in future fiscal years?
[Zac Bears]: So seed money for grant funded projects would be a key priority additional.
[Zac Bears]: If you had more, you could get more grants.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Bob has left. I'm just gonna make my one comment, then I'll go to, does anyone want to have a question? Okay, then I'll just make my comment anyway. Bob's not here, but this is really a message for Bob. Maybe we can include it in the report. I just love how few line items are in your budget. I think we're at like 12 or 13. I love that. It just makes it easier. It's everything has a name that I can kind of at least understand and I don't have to ask for an extra explanation. I understand some of that is gap and some of that is state determined and whatever, but. I just think it's a really clean budget where I understand what everything means and that doesn't mean that the information isn't there for every other department, but to me it is a model of naming conventions for ordinary expense line items. So as an extreme nerd, I will close there. Any further questions on the planning development sustainability budget for the director? All right, we'll go through the boards. Rapid lightning speed.
[Zac Bears]: I've got Board of Appeals. And it's looking like that's going up 1350.
[Zac Bears]: So that's going from 11,150 last year to 12,500 this year because we increased the size of the board of appeals to avoid any quorum issues, I believe was the main reason. Yes. Community development board, no change. On board of appeals or community development board?
[Zac Bears]: Energy and environment is an unlimited number of people, right?
[Zac Bears]: We will take someone else's free labor for our... If you have an expertise and you want to work, let's do it. Yep. Great. All right. So if those questions are answered, I saw no change for Community Development Board. Looks like a small stipend reduction on the conservation commission.
[Zac Bears]: So that's going from 8200 to 7500. Yeah, got it. Historic District Commission, it looks like A stipend is proposed and there's been a shift from special projects to the stipend and to professional fees?
[Zac Bears]: Who in your office is going to take that on?
[Zac Bears]: And that's significant. Yeah. Something that this council has discussed prior sessions, prior years, try to get some uniformity, some equity across all the boards and commissions. Look at all of them because it seems like it's just we make one and we set this. And then 20 years later, we make this and we set this. So I think when we're not triaging the budget, that is something this council is interested in if we have the time to get there.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. Historical commission, we have, it was FY 24, $38,050, FY 25, $35,000, it looks like just a reduction in professional fees and a reduction in the unclassified line item, which I believe was a grant match of some kind.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And Bicycle Commission, $1,500 last year, $1,500 this year, no change. And that's for supplies and stuff.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Any further questions on the Planning Development Sustainability Department or the boards and commissions which it helps to coordinate? Seeing none, thank you, Director Hunt. Any further questions or motions in this committee of the whole meeting, which is our final budget preliminary meeting number seven. I should have led with that last one. Budget seven on the motion to adjourn. We do not, we have, we believe that on this timeline, the 31st was the deadline. We believe we've met that by getting us with this being the last meeting. I'm seeing a nod, yes. So that should be our goal, which is great. And the last thing I'll say is Celtics 92, Pacers 88. On the motion to adjourn of Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Yeah, they got back pretty fast. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: City Council, Administration and Finance Committee, May 21, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: For present one absent meetings called to order. There'll be a meeting in the Medford City Council Administration Finance Committee, May 21st, 2024 at 6 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall 85, George P. Hassett Drive, Medford M.A. and by Zoom. Purpose of this meeting is to discuss paper 24-025 offered by Councilor Leming regarding commercial vacancy tax. The full description is whereas the City of Medford has many commercial storefronts that are either vacant or for that are either vacant for unacceptably long periods of time, or are rarely and inconsistently open for business. And whereas there exists insufficient incentive for owners of such property to maintain and rent storefronts to active businesses. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Medford City Council discuss the adoption of a commercial vacancy tax that can be applied to disincentivize these storefront properties from remaining unoccupied indefinitely. Be it further resolved that this matter be referred to committee for further discussion with the chief assessor, finance director, and economic development director.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We have the economic development director who was invited, so I'm happy to go to him first. We have Sal DiStefano. Sal, I see you're in your car. It's a good time to chat. We can't hear you. I just asked you to unmute. You're going to have to click a button.
[Zac Bears]: So we just lost you for about 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: We can, it sounds good now.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. DeStefano. Any further questions or comments by members of the council? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming, then Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Collins, Vice President Collins, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, but he's talked a lot. I'm owning you.
[Zac Bears]: It's a bad sound system. Let's be careful. Let's be careful we don't get misheard.
[Zac Bears]: I think you said it best when you said we don't have to have all the details at this time. And I think we actually don't behoove ourselves to discuss the details of the ordinance that we would potentially be able to pass before we have the power to do it. And I think we get caught up in those discussions and it actually confuses the process. I was going to say that like 20 minutes ago, but I kind of already let it go. So I decided to let it go more, which maybe wasn't the best choice. But in any case, I just want to say three things. Number one, one of the issues here is local control. I generally think that it's better for the city of Benford to have more authority than less authority and to have an additional tool in the toolbox. So in that sense, I think there's validity here. My second piece is on legal review. In addition to the other potential motions discussed, I believe by Vice President Collins, there'll be a motion to keep it in committee and have further discussion generally on the commercial vacancy issue. I'd also like to see the text of the draft Home Rule petition reviewed by legal counsel. My third issue is just generally what we're trying to solve for here. I think we all know that, you know, good economics shows that good, fair, and free markets are markets with good regulation. One of the things we're trying to correct for here is regulations outside of our control. There are tax incentives at the federal level that have perverse incentives and create perverse incentives. There are externalities that the regulatory system doesn't account for. And as someone, I think Sal noted, a lot of this is about relationships and network theory tends to throw microeconomics 101, as Friedman would say, into disarray very quickly because you have relationships and actually the personal making a big impact here. Or you may have an individual who has a certain portfolio where it makes sense to keep something vacant, where you may have an individual with a portfolio where it doesn't. And that's where the idea, the very clean but very unrealistic idea of the uniform rational actor tends to fall apart. So just putting that out there, I do agree that obviously the regulations at the multiple levels of government that impact commercial vacancy clearly are out of whack. I tend to agree that having more tools at the municipal level to try to align them is a good thing. And this might well be one, but I think we have to have more discussion about that. So I would request, in addition to the motion I think Vice President Collins was intending to propose, that we also refer this to draft home rule petition to legal counsel. But just as one person in general, my opinion is that getting more home rule power from the state is a good thing. And this could be a good tool in the scope of trying to address this problem. So with that, is there a motion on the floor? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On that motion, is there any discussion by members of the public? We have a second from Councilor Lazzaro. Any discussion by members of the public? Mr. Fiore, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. We're running up on the clock. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Do I have three minutes? You have three minutes starting now, yeah, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Just to clarify, we are proposing having the power to discuss implementing a tax.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And I think that is the intent of Vice President Collins' motion. Any further discussion by members of the public? Seeing none on Zoom and none in the chamber, on the motion by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Any further motions? On the motion adjourned by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? For those on Zoom, we are moving to our Committee of the Whole meeting on the school budget, so you'll have to rejoin the next link. Meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee of the Whole. May 15th, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. 7 present, 0 absent. Meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 2nd Floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford MA and via Zoom. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Fiscal 2025 Budget as part of our annual budget process. This is Preliminary Budget Meeting No. 6. And we have the following departments present. Bonds and Interest, Debt Service, Elections, Electrical, Facilities, Fire, Information Technology, Law, Parking, and Public Works. At the request of Councilors, we will be taking the Fire Department first, and then the Parking Department, and then the DPW, and then we will go in alphabetical order. So I apologize to the Law Department. With that, we'll start with the fire department. We have Fire Chief Evans with us. Basically how we've been doing this is I'm going to read the budget and the difference between the prior year. I'm going to go through the change sheet on the second page. If there's anything that I missed or that you want to state, feel free to do so. And then we'd love to hear your narrative about what the department has been doing in fiscal 24 and what the plans are for fiscal 25. And after that, we'll go to questions from Councilors and then questions from the public or comments from the public if there are any. So does that sound good? Good. I know it's your first rodeo up here, so welcome. We're happy to have you. Medford Fire Department fiscal 24 budget was $14,536,023. Fiscal 25 proposed budget $15,126,017.29. Fiscal 24 budget was for 123 positions. Fiscal 24 budget was for 123 positions. Fiscal 25 budget is also for 123 positions. The increase is about 4%. And all of the change is in fixed cost growth, where we have, or the increase, I should say, new fire contract increases, step increases in promotions, and increase in the hazard duty pay. And it looks like there are some decreases in a number of line items as well, offsetting So, but the increase is mainly made up of fixed costs, as we have heard for every single department so far. So far, we have only heard two non-fixed cost increases, totaling about $60,000 in a $200 million budget. With that, I'll turn it over to you. If I missed anything, and we'd love to hear what your department's been up to and your plans for the next fiscal year.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much. I'm going to go. First, I want to say thank you for your presentation. And we did have Lieutenant Marcellino present a lot about the SAFER grant, about time has gone from even four to six weeks ago. So we did hear about that and really impressed by that work. And the trucks as well, you know, Chief Friedman was here talking about the 800 day timeline. And that's why we did approve the free cash allocation, even though it hasn't been spent yet, just to get in the queue. So I'm really glad.
[Zac Bears]: We heard more, but if she if she's welcome to share, I just want to go to the Councilors with their questions for you first. But go to Councilor Leming, Councilor Collins, Councilor Lazzaro. Anyone over here? No, not yet. Okay. And I think Councilor Scott probably has some questions too. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: It's already been budgeted for. There's a free cash appropriation approved by the prior council, so it's not in this budget.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not 100% sure on that, do you? I would have to check the specifics of the contract. I know we had to approve, they required for the order us to have approved that the money would be spent. I'm pretty sure it's an invoicing issue, like we'd get an invoice and pay it. That's my understanding, but I'm not sure at what point in the process they send that. I don't know if they send that after we get it delivered, because I also believe there's some provisions. We get it, and then you guys have to test it out and make sure it's working.
[Zac Bears]: but I don't know, maybe the finance department could, procurement could let us know. Okay, thank you. We throw that in the committee report just to request procurement, let us know the timing of the free cash payment for the two fire engines. Any other thing, any questions, Councilor Leming? No, that was it, thank you. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just a quick follow up on that. After the two 24-year-old vehicles, what's the next oldest?
[Zac Bears]: And what generally would be the recommendation of how old the truck should be? When would we start calling it an old truck?
[Zac Bears]: The current batch of five, it was five started in August 23, and they're going to the academy this July.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further questions for the Fire Department? Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, good. Great. All right. Seeing none, I just had one quick question. The 23 per group minimum manning, is that Is that coming from the NFPA? Is that a contractual requirement? Is it based on an NFPA suggestion?
[Zac Bears]: Great. All right. That was my question. Any further questions from members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Are there any comments by members of the public?
[Zac Bears]: We love DPW and facilities as well. IT's okay.
[Zac Bears]: It's a laundry list of these podiums. You got it. Mr. Buckley, name and address, record, please.
[Zac Bears]: I just have one. On the NFPA standards, do they also have like a formula for like the size of a city, number of high rises, like how many engines and ladders you should have?
[Zac Bears]: Right, because there's only 23 people.
[Zac Bears]: Is that 17 firefighters?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comment from anyone on the fire department budget in person or on Zoom? Did I miss a question? Councilor Leming, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Fellow President, I'm very disappointed that you would demote President Buckley. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. We had some solidarity there.
[Zac Bears]: Is there any expense that is being paid out of the DPW budget for the repairs of your vehicles? No. Other than the staffing? No. The fleet maintenance?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. The chief of staff.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Just for our edification and edification of the public in the future, is it possible to include the prior actuals in the ClearGov presentation?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: ClearGov had inaccurate information. Inaccurate? Yes.
[Zac Bears]: The actuals data in ClearGov, we discussed this in the last budget, was not all uploaded correctly. So the budget data, like what was the budget for fiscal 24, the budget amounts were correct. But my understanding is that actuals data was not all accurate that was uploaded. Because if you look at it, there's like a fiscal 21 in there where it says the city spent like $50 million. That's obviously not true.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, there was definitely some issues with the information that was uploaded, and we did talk about it last year, and we've already talked about it this budget cycle about making sure that whatever is put up there is accurate. Very good.
[Zac Bears]: And hopefully that there's a lot of it for many prior years.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, seeing no hands raised and no one at the podium for the Fire Department, we're going to move to the Parking Department. We have Director Morrison with us. Director Morrison, I'm going to quickly read the budget figures and then you can correct any mistakes that I make. Oh, you won't make any mistakes. We would love to hear any kind of highlights for this year, things you're planning for next year. And then one thing, which I forgot to ask Chief Evans, but he did give it to me anyway. Anything that you're planning for in the future that wasn't included in this budget? No, and he already got me. You know, you want to come back up? He got he filled it in its staffing it's the engine so we got there but I didn't ask it formally so if there's stuff that's not in here, but that your department needs and is planning for in future budgets we'd love to hear about that too.
[Zac Bears]: So I will just quickly say we have the parking department fiscal 24 budgeted 1,015,559, fiscal 25 budget 951,563.80. That is a reduction of 63,995.20 and about a 6% reduction. There's also a reduction in the headcount from 13 to 12. It looks like the loss of one clerk position. And then there were some fixed cost increases for the, looks like for non-union 2% contract and minor ordinary increases, but also a significant reduction in professional services of 70,000 related to having the new parking meters. So with that, I will turn it over to you, Director Morrison.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for the correction.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. Okay, floor is yours highlights of the year and plans for next year.
[Zac Bears]: You said $2 million down to $8,000.
[Zac Bears]: Well, congratulations to your department and the incredible work that you've done. Thank you. And I'm glad to see that it's being honored as it should be.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions from members of the council? Councilor Lazzaro, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Speaking for the tree enthusiasts, all I can say is no Bradford pears.
[Zac Bears]: That's about all I got. We have Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I have some questions. I don't know if the chief of staff or facilities director want to talk about the office space at all in the parking department and we've been able to make.
[Zac Bears]: Understood. I hope in the future we can find a way to, to make some changes. And you know, you say 50,000.
[Zac Bears]: I'm glad we're in such a lighthearted mood this evening, but that landed the way that it did. Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff for the answer. I just had a couple questions you've answered most of them without me having to ask them, which I always appreciate. Just to confirm the suggestion of additional staffing the department was sometime in the future it would be beneficial to have as many as five additional parking and five additional parking folks would allow us to have at least be minimally staffed.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And the LPR, the license plate readers, I just didn't catch it. Are those going in on the parking department vehicles or the police?
[Zac Bears]: Great. And one other thing, and it's come up a little bit, but I just wanted to speak to it directly. You know, ever since we've made this transition, one of the concerns has been the safety of the staff in your department, both folks out in the street and quite frankly, folks at the window. Has that situation improved at all?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Thank you so much. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Great. Thank you so much. Any further questions from members of the council? Seeing none, any comments from members of the public in person or on Zoom? In person, come to the podium. On Zoom, please raise your hand. Seeing none, thank you very much. Director Morrison.
[Zac Bears]: Congratulations again for your hard work.
[Zac Bears]: DPW, you are next. So we will welcome Commissioner McGivern, Engineer Wartella, and any other of the DPW crew if they're wanting to join us.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk, let's put a motion and email Mary.
[Zac Bears]: No, on Monday or whenever she's back. Okay, so we're going to go in alphabetical order through your department starting with cemetery. I think we'll just do quick. I'll read it through pause and have questions on each department rather than try to have everybody remember all. or six of them, because I will forget. So starting with the Cemetery Division of the Department of Public Works, we have fiscal 24 budget, $1,059,320. Fiscal 25 budget, $1,118,050.11 for a net increase of $58,730.11. The headcount is remaining at nine, nine fiscal 24, nine fiscal 25. And the growth in that is almost entirely salaries. It's all fixed cost growth, no new programs, no new staff, as well as inflation cost increases for supplies. And with that, what's going on with the cemetery division?
[Zac Bears]: access drive for the Brooks Estate? Correct. Okay, so it's on the north side of the drive, almost entirely, okay. And the remediation on the soil, how's, I mean, I've read the trustees' reports, how's that going?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And I know I'm on the MMA public works committee and a lot of public works folks from around the state talking about how the cost of removing dirt is going up and up, so I'm glad to hear it's mostly not contaminated.
[Zac Bears]: What's that? Should we ask the residents if they want any dirt?
[Zac Bears]: I know. Sorry, Tim. I just couldn't resist. That's OK.
[Zac Bears]: Well, that's not up to me. If anyone asks, that's what I can do. All right, well, that sounds good on cemetery. Any questions from members of the council on the cemetery division, soil removal, et cetera? Seeing none, any questions from members of the public regarding the cemetery division? Great, engineering. We have our City Engineer. Just very quickly, Fiscal 24, the Engineering Division, $495,830.05. Fiscal 25, $543,661.93. Headcount staying the same at a four headcount for Fiscal 24 and Fiscal 25. net increase $47,831.93, and it looks like all of that is fixed cost growth, step increase, clerical unit increase, and the 2% non-union COLA increase. And if you want to share anything additional about engineering, anything you've been up to this past year, and any plans for next year.
[Zac Bears]: Great. My only question, or to council's questions. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Thank you. My only question, what maybe in future budgets, not in this budget, would the engineering department be looking for in terms of additional staffing or additional ordinary expenses?
[Zac Bears]: do you expect that level of investment, like given the capital plan that we have now? It's a tough question, but is there a certain threshold, like is there a time in this capital plan where you expect the work is going to be so great that you'll need someone new or would it require a bigger capital budget before we get there?
[Zac Bears]: So just to start. Just a little bit. The first check-in meeting was today, basically. Great. Well, that's great to hear. And I know how hard you guys are working and how much progress we've made already. And it's been really helpful. If folks want to reference our late April public works and facilities meeting where you guys give us the update on the street and sidewalk assessments, I think that's a great, great thing to reference so that we don't have to talk about it now. And really excited that we'll have something similar coming through around our water and sewer infrastructure as well. So thank you so much for your hard work. It's much appreciated. Any further questions for the engineering division, for members of the council? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any questions from members of the public around engineering? Seeing none, in person or on Zoom, we'll go to Forestry Division. Forestry Division, budget fiscal 24, $616,473. Budget fiscal 25, $623,106.94. Five-person headcount in fiscal 24, five-person headcount in fiscal 25. All of the increases, fixed cost growth and salaries based on the DPW contract. Turn it over to you, Commissioner McGiver.
[Zac Bears]: Great, any questions? Excuse me, on the forestry budget, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions from members of the council regarding the forestry division? Seeing none, any questions or comments from members of the public on the forestry division at the podium or on Zoom? Seeing none, we will move to Highway Division. Fiscal 24, budget $11,624,596. Fiscal 25, budget $12,475,611.23, increase $851,015.23, Headcount 24, headcount remaining at 24 for fiscal 25. And the entirety of this is also, again, all fixed cost growth. We have about 120,000 related to COLA increases and the contract changes for the 24 staff members. And then we have, excuse me, a big increase here in our newly negotiated budget. waste management contract. So we are going from seven. I'm assuming everything in 5293 is the waste contract. Is there anything else in there? You're going from 7938 to 8727? Yes. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Because the new three.
[Zac Bears]: Just so we can clarify that. I want to just point out that that's about a 10% increase, which is more than 2.5%. I'm just going to leave it at that.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. All right. And just on that note, when we move to year three of the contract or year four, whenever the biweekly trash kicks in, is that going to drop our rate? Are we expecting like a reduction at all?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. In terms of the highway division, anything you want to talk about that you've done over fiscal 24 and any big plans for fiscal 25? And again, I just want to note that the trash budget in here is like 66% of the highway division. So when we talk about $12 million for the highway division, most of that is trash removal.
[Zac Bears]: This is the dam at Wrights Pond?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Commissioner for the Highway Division. Any questions from members of the Council on the Highway Division? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Is it four, eight, 12, right? Say again, four in the first year, eight in the second year, 12 in the third year.
[Zac Bears]: I think you may have negotiated that after we last talked.
[Zac Bears]: And that's the three contracts. It's waste management, trash, waste management, recycling, garbage to garden, compost?
[Zac Bears]: Got it.
[Zac Bears]: Any other questions on the highway division? I have one, Tim. Yes. The reduction in the sidewalk repairs budget from $90,000 to $50,000. Are we making that up somewhere else? How is that going to impact what we can do there?
[Zac Bears]: I know we've talked about it. I just want to bring home a couple of questions and a couple of nuances that have come before me even since we last talked about it. Sure. What's generally the timeline between a temporary asphalt patch and a concrete filling with concrete? How long is that usually lasting right now?
[Zac Bears]: And my other question, you kind of got there, where we have, you know, older trees planted in sidewalks that are basically shortening and narrowing the sidewalk or the roots are uprooting and it's an asphalt patch. How is the department making decisions between forestry and highway and your team around prioritizing saving healthy trees versus allowing for accessibility for people in wheelchairs and other forms of mobility devices. How are we working through that conundrum? Because I understand it's a difficult one.
[Zac Bears]: But certainly not for every single one.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Thank you. When you were in Charleston, did you make it to City Hall?
[Zac Bears]: That's pretty cool.
[Zac Bears]: Wow.
[Zac Bears]: So should we work on that, or? Oh, we have enough horses. Yeah. I just wanted to know that the clerk was there, he might have something to say, but their council chambers gorgeous. So, if you want to.
[Zac Bears]: What do they have, a multimillion dollar Washington portrait in their council chamber?
[Zac Bears]: Paging director Ricky. He said, yes. All right. We're in. Thank you, Tim. Any questions from members of the Council, again, on the Highway Division? Any comments from members of the public, either in person or on Zoom? Seeing none, we'll go to Parks, Parks Division. in fiscal 24, maintaining it eight in fiscal 25. $951,016 in fiscal 24 up to $957,577.56 in fiscal 25 for an increase of $6,561.56, about 1%, and all of that is in DPW contract increases for the salary, so it's all fixed cost growth, and it does look like some of that was obviously offset by some reductions. Commissioner McGovern.
[Zac Bears]: Great, any questions from members of the council regarding the parks division? Seeing none, any questions from members of the public regarding the parks division? Seeing none, that concludes the general fund DPW. So all the departments we just discussed were coming out of the general fund, which the biggest funder is the property tax levy. We're now going into water sewer enterprise fund, which is funded by the water and sewer rate payers. And we have in water sewer enterprise fiscal 24 budget 25,956,537 fiscal 25 budget 26,879,692 dollars and 12 cents. increase $923,155.12, going from a headcount of 21 to a headcount of 20, and that's about a 4% increase in the budget. Most of that is in fixed costs of about $1.1 million, the vast majority of that being the contract increase with the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, which is going up $784,517. There are also a number of other contracts going up significantly for $150,000 and $88,000 increase based on the new DPW contract for staff and staff raises. and some increased costs for field work around water mains and stormwater. There's also some new expenses. This is only the third time we've seen that all budget, and it's for two printers, safety equipment, and parts to replace fire hydrants. So with that, again, 1.1 million in fixed costs, 800,000 of that is MWRA. Only 42,000 is a new expense, and it seems for some pretty basic stuff. I'll turn it over to you, Commissioner McGimmer.
[Zac Bears]: So that's going from 2 to 3.
[Zac Bears]: Got it, just so we can make sure we have the right stuff. In front of us, I had it in here as plus one deputy commissioner, plus two ME03, minus one assistant water network admin, minus two maintenance crafts, minus one equipment repair, as that sounds like that's not accurate.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, can you submit to us an updated headcount? Yep. Thank you. My only that was my only question was just, uh. That was I just had a question about that. Um, is the deputy commissioner being paid from the water sewer budget or.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Okay, any questions from members of the Council on the Water Sewer Enterprise Fund? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Commissioner, are we, and Director Dickinson may have the answer as well. We're not budgeting for a surplus of retained earnings in the enterprise account, correct? So we're not expecting more revenue than we are planning for in expenses? I know we're not in the general fund.
[Zac Bears]: But that's usually because expenses were not made, right? Like we're not saying we're budgeting 27, point for 27 million in revenue, but we're only going to spend 26.5, right? Oh, I see what you're saying.
[Zac Bears]: Right. But the budget, it's a balanced budget for the enterprise.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I just wanted to put that out there just to note that both additional money going to free cash reserves in the general fund or additional money going to retained earnings. It's not that we're budgeting to raise more money than we spend. It's that we're either spending less or raising more than we expect. Thank you both. Any further questions on the water sewer enterprise fund from members of the council? Any questions or comments from members of the public, either in person or on Zoom? Seeing none, I just wanted to note that if there are significant changes to any of the divisions, we may have you back after the budget proposal goes out. Not that we're expecting them, but who knows? So just because it's a new process and you're here earlier than normal, we appreciate it.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Tim. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Owen. Next we have right on topic debt service bonds and interest Yes, so this is one of the places we have two numbers we have our general fund debt service and our water and sewer fund debt service and General Fund Debt Service budgeted fiscal 24 $5,090,533.77. Fiscal 25 proposed $5,391,318.49 for about an increase of $300,000. Water and sewer fund debt service fiscal 24 budgeted $1,273,968 and fiscal 25 proposed $1,743,643.75 for an increase of about $500,000. The total debt service increasing about $800,000. Again, $500,000 from water sewer fund and $300,000 from our general fund. And it also looks like most of that is increased principal payments. And I will turn it over to Director Dickinson.
[Zac Bears]: Is this keeping the debt service amounts about at the percent target for the budget that you guys set? Was it 3% or 5%? I can't quite remember.
[Zac Bears]: I remember the Collins Center presentation on the capital improvement plan that the goal was to get us to a certain target percentage to increase bond capacity at some point. If you could just let us know kind of where this puts us on that track, on that target. I think that was all the way up through fiscal 29, if I remember correctly. Sure.
[Zac Bears]: understood. And then if we were to do a debt exclusion for major capital project, that means that it wouldn't come out of the general fund debt service, correct?
[Zac Bears]: Right, OK. But that would potentially allow us to plan for other uses for the capital that may have gone to the fire station. Yes. Any other questions from members of the council on the debt service bonds and interest budget? Seeing none, any questions from members of the public on the debt service bonds and interest budget? Seeing none, thank you, Director Dickinson. Electrical department. I saw Mr. Randazzo earlier. I'm guessing he went to do better things. Oh, sorry. Nope, elections, give me one second. I think I may have just, I put elections in the wrong place. My bad.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, no, no, no. I saw him here diligently waiting and he is, always at the beck and call I think of all of us. And he's back. Is that all right? Come on, Steve. We'll take you, Steve. I saw you running, so you get to go. Anyone who runs into this room.
[Zac Bears]: No, it's my fault, actually. I had it out of order, so that's on me.
[Zac Bears]: Good evening, Mr. Superintendent. It's great to have you here. Thank you so much for all the work that you do. We know how important it is. So I'm just going to quickly go through the budget for the electrical department. We have fiscal 24, 644,100. Fiscal 25, the new budget at 678,804.84. That's an increase of $34,704.84. The salaries raises coming from the contract and 2% non-union, some fixed cost increases and increases to vacation time and sick time. Some increases in electrical costs that we're paying more for our streetlights and some increase in some meter charges as well, but it's all fixed costs going up. So with that, we'd love to hear from you about what you've been doing this year, your plans for next year.
[Zac Bears]: Well, we think you're electrified.
[Zac Bears]: Any big plans for the upcoming year?
[Zac Bears]: Wonderful. On the switch to LED, how many of our lights would you say are LED at this point?
[Zac Bears]: Great. And then on the on the traffic signals, do we have any that are really old that need to be replaced?
[Zac Bears]: All right. Any other questions for Superintendent Randazzo? Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: Any other questions? We are very lucky to have you and grateful for your work. So with that, I'm just going to see if there's anyone from the public who would like to ask a question. Seeing none. Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: All right, elections, sorry for that, it's my bad. And early in your tenure, I apologize for that as well. We have our new elections manager and the chief of staff here. Are we in week two?
[Zac Bears]: All right, so I'm sure you got it all handled, you know every detail. I just want to thank you for being here. We have had, you know, we, this council voted a couple years ago to shift to this model of an independent elections department under an elections commission, and we've been working with the administration around that. We've had some great points of agreement, some points of disagreement, but we are, you know, we are really grateful. You know, we had some conversations earlier to be like, let's call it elections department. That's a great thing to make it clear that the commission is just overseeing and you guys are the elections department. So, but yeah, I just wanted to give some of that context. I'm sure, you know, it's a pretty new department independent, although served many years with this clerk and others as the registrar voters. I'm going to read through quickly basically the budget summary, then we'd love to hear so far from, and also wanna thank Chief of Staff Nazarian, who has been running elections for a little bit now. Just go through the budget, hear from both of you about what's been happening in fiscal 24, your plans for fiscal 25, anything you think this department needs that wasn't able to get into this budget, but maybe need in the future, and then we'll go to questions from members of the council. So fiscal 24 budget, $340,196. Fiscal 25 budget, $328,629.20. This is a decrease of about 3%, $11,566.80. Decrease is caused by having one fewer election in 2025, fiscal 25 than fiscal 24. So the salary line for seasonal and overtime seems to be reduced. excuse me, reduced, and also this decreases offset by increases from the contract and ordinary expenses due to inflation around fixed costs. The headcount is remaining three, I believe that's two full-time, one part-time, and that's staying the same over the two fiscal years. So with that, I'll turn it over to both of you.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I'm certainly interested to hear what you think is a more contentious electoral environment.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much. Any questions to Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. I just had one question. Oh, sorry, Justin. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no. I mean, I think it remains to be seen to me. Obviously, things are getting done, and I appreciate the update and transparency. I just think it remains to be seen. We'll see how these upcoming elections go, given that this is the budget we're looking at citywide. It makes it a little tougher to say, let's add two positions in the elections department. That'd be the most of any department in the whole city. But I certainly still have some outstanding questions of if the staffing level is sufficient for the level of work, or if there needs to be additional budgeting around the part-time and the seasonal. that. I respect that it's a moving target. Um and respect that, uh, your leadership and you know, we'll see. We'll see how it goes. And I trust that there will be an honesty that if there is more needed that you'll come to us with the need and then I respect that. So, um, my question was actually around more Councilor Leming's question just around the voter list. Um you know, it does seem to be getting up there. You know, I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, maybe not, but do you think that the updates to the state registration system or any work that you guys are planning to do maybe after these two elections might weed out some of the folks who have moved away but might still be listed and maybe they moved out of state so they didn't re-register in Massachusetts so the state system isn't pulling them out of Medford and putting them somewhere else, those kind of things?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, there was an error in 2021, where people were moved, marked inactive inaccurately, and then all marked active. And I don't know how the backend of the system works, but could that maybe have restarted a bunch of four consecutive year clocks at that point?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions on the elections department? Seeing none, any questions from the public on the Elections Department? Seeing none, thank you so much and welcome to Medford.
[Zac Bears]: Facilities Department, Director Riggi, thank you for sitting it out.
[Zac Bears]: And the rivalry between the Council and IT grows. Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. I saw we forced Rich to eat some food. He's so bored and hungry, he went for the food. Welcome, Mr. Iggy. Facilities department. We'll go. I'll just go through it. You've watched everyone else. You know what's up. Fiscal 24 $1,000,619,513 fiscal 25 $1,000,865,594 one head count. Fiscal 24, that's you. One headcount Fiscal 25, that's you. Looks like about a 15% increase, all of that being essentially fixed cost growth. A little bit of an increase because of the non-union salary. Utility costs, electric and gas prices going up, that's a budget of 100 increase of $140,000. And then the cleaning contract increased $100,000. And that's really it. So if you want to share about what you've been doing fiscal 24 plans for fiscal 25, and then anything that isn't in this budget that you think may be needed for your department in the future, either new staff or other expenses.
[Zac Bears]: And was that about concrete or weather?
[Zac Bears]: Yep. Is that 18 including the schools?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I think there's personally, I think there's great opportunities for synergy there, but. We will leave the law for another day. I have a question. Any other questions? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. My only question... Oh, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: My only question, do the new windows come with drapes?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, aesthetically we should do some, I agree with that. I thought we should keep the ripped one, though. I've been focused. I'll bring that to the... Everyone else has been talking. Chevalier, $32,000 staying flat. Is this all funded through casino money or half funded?
[Zac Bears]: Any other questions for facilities in Chevalier? Any questions? Oh, sorry, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further questions? Any questions from members of the public? Rich, do you have any questions for Paul? None that you can say publicly. All right, I think that's all we have. Thank you so much. We really appreciate the work that your department does, that you do. Information technology. I like the coat. It's good. It's looking good.
[Zac Bears]: I'm sorry. Dinner for rich. Is that really true?
[Zac Bears]: In cases where you do have urgent plans, always feel free. We will accommodate. I give 24-7 for City. I don't have a life other than servicing its needs. Just don't tell HR.
[Zac Bears]: Aren't we all? Adam, if you could be... Oh, you have a presentation?
[Zac Bears]: This Rattler is getting two beaded. I love it.
[Zac Bears]: Director Lane, thank you very much for your thorough presentation.
[Zac Bears]: A model for all of us. Any questions for members of the Council? Councilor Leming, then Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: It's just retro.
[Zac Bears]: Great, any other questions for Councilor Iya, Councilor Collins?
[Zac Bears]: I just want to personally thank you for all the assistance you've given to us here. Emergency assistance, not emergency assistance. There's a much better digital setup up here now for chairs of the council, council committees, school committee to you know, be working on Zoom, managing it, there's a physical hard connection in case the Wi-Fi goes out. So making this kind of a foolproof setup up here as best as possible, even though I'm sure we try to file it up as much as we can. And that's just been really great. So really thankful for that. Also for working with Kevin Harrington and myself on some of the consulting us on the audio visual upgrade and work in the clerk's office as well. So I just wanted to really thank you for that. And next time, especially if you're bringing slides next year, I may not remember this, but I hope you remember it. You can go first. So if you're on big, long night, seriously, and you've reminded me that I said it, if I'm still the president, fingers crossed, that's a commitment I'm happy to make.
[Zac Bears]: put it in your calendar, mostly because I want everyone to come with a PowerPoint. I think that's a great thing. I'm surprised nobody does. Thank you so much. Are there any questions for members of the public? Seeing no members of the public present in the chamber or on Zoom, you are free to go. Excellent.
[Zac Bears]: And if we did make you miss dinner, I do apologize. Last department of the night, law department. Chief of staff Nesarian representing the administration. Law department budget, fiscal 24, $552,403. Fiscal 25, $530,035.80. Head count going down from three to two, minus 4% growth. The decrease is due to the reduction and removal of the assistant city clerk and some minor reductions in ordinary expenses. There is an increase in the City solicitor salary increase in the budget for outside legal counsel. Chief of staff Nazarian. That's why I said assistant city solicitor, right? Oh, sorry. Assistant city solicitor. My apologies. What a night. But yeah, so the removal of the assistant city solicitor position, taking the full-time head count down from three to two. And so with that, we'll go to the chief of staff for, further presentation.
[Zac Bears]: Any requests for the narrative or objections to the narrative? Does anyone want to hear it? seeing those very broad, very broad.
[Zac Bears]: I do want to say that that is certainly no comment on the wonderful work of Jada Spencer, our office manager and confidential secretary. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Got it. Okay, questions from the council. Councilor Collins, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Vice President Collins. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: We're going back to Councilor Leming. Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I don't wanna get into... I'm gonna work hard on what I'm about to say. I think there are other ways to address the school funding issue that do not include this cut. I think we are still discussing that, and I'll leave it at that for that element of it. I definitely don't support this model. I certainly wouldn't support a fully outsourced model. I will say that in conversations with council who work for the firm that we are outsourcing to, there have been mentions that the model we are using is unorthodox. I would think that they would benefit from us moving to that model and for some of those councils to say that they would see an in-house model at least partially being more of a I don't want to say recommendation, but I've heard from members of the legal team that we work with that that element is important. They think that there's a lot of value there. So, you know, that's really where I'm at on it. I think we had a budget agreement two years ago that was predicated on having two full-time staff members in the law department. I do not think that that, I do not think the circumstances of this budget abrogate that agreement. And I certainly don't think that I think there are other ways to find the solution that we're seeking to find by removing this position. I also don't think that 78,000 is enough at this point to hire a qualified assistant city solicitor, so that's another discussion. But, you know, I just think that there's a lot of work that I think this council has been put in a position of not having in-house council that has put us in difficult positions in the past. I think we work our best with council. I think we're very judicious with trying not to reach out to council because we understand that there could be added costs to all of that. I think basically the way that all of that works has put this council in difficult positions at certain times and having in-house council, a city solicitor, And I'll just add that there have been a variety of processes and procedures that have been drawn out in terms of codification and of ordinances. And again, it's not a comment so much on any failing of a person as much as it is that there's no lawyer in this building that you can walk up to their office and say, hey, do you have five minutes? And know that that's gonna be the position and opinion of the city. And I think that that's an incredibly important thing to have. So I'm glad to see the increased salary here. I hope that that attracts a qualified candidate. I think losing the other full-time staff person in the department may detract a qualified candidate from wanting to come here, knowing that they won't have an assistant. So those are really my main concerns here. I, my preference would be not even a path in the future, but to just have a level staff funded budget here. If it gets, uh, if it's a, if it's a take back at the end of the year, like it has been the last three fiscal years is a take back at the end of the year. Right. Um, so, or maybe I'm not using the right term, but, uh, um, yeah, I just think that this is, I don't think that using this department's budget, to address the problems that are being stated is the most judicious course. And I'll leave it at that. I'm hopeful that we can continue to work collaboratively through the process and understanding of the deep underfunding of the schools and find an alternative to changes in the law department structure. Instead, find an alternative to that as we look to close the gap on the school funding. in the absence of being able to do that, I think some commitment in future budgets that this would be a key priority and that we would look to bring back the second full-time person potentially at a more competitive rate would also be potentially a path that we could take. Although that's sort of speaking for myself. So that's where I'm at on this. It has been certainly a top priority of the council, a major issue and a major question that we've been hearing. So There are a lot of places that I would be more than happy and willing to look to address the financial issue. I think this is one where it's really tough to do that. So that's all I'll say from my perspective. Any further comments by members of the council on the law department budget? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. I just have one more question. Will there be a cap change presented to the council to reflect the salary change proposed? And would that come with the budget and with an effective date of July 1, something like that?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. Yeah, I think just thinking through in my head, that's probably the best way to do it, then we avoid any sort of chapter 40, whatever 43 issues. When I give you the floor back, I know we all just said a bunch of stuff.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief. And I appreciate that. I think what you said highlights, though, the difference. Especially for us. The CPA manager can go ask KP Law for something, but a Councilor has to ask me to ask you to ask them. Right? So it's a different... We don't even have... the same access to legal counsel. I mean, you haven't denied access and I'm not implying that, but I'm saying that the process for us is like two more steps than it might be for a non-department head staff person.
[Zac Bears]: One step more.
[Zac Bears]: That's kind of the point I'm making though. You know, I don't think that Because we are members of a legislative body, it limits our rights to reach out to city staff members or to independent resources for research. But I don't think we need to debate our theories about that tonight. More my point is that we make the law. And right now, we are making laws often without a lawyer in the room who is there to serve us. We can ask for it. We work around the schedules of KP Law. They are often very flexible. Again, I'm not trying to point fingers at individuals There's a difference between having someone who represents and works, is paid by just the city of Medford, who works in an office at Medford City Hall, who can build a relationship and grab a snack with a department head or a staff member or sit around a table with the city council in the committee room or here. versus people that we see on Zoom every so often. I know Janelle Austin pretty well now, but I know her now about as well as I knew Mark Rumley or Kim Scanlon. And I've worked with Janelle for four years. I worked with Mark Rumley for zero days. And I worked with Kim Scanlon for a year and a half. And some of that is, hey Kim, in the hall. And some of that is walking into the clerk's office and having a conversation you didn't expect to have that generates a different result. I think, to be honest, Same reason that there's a policy where remote work is not the standard operating procedure of the city, right? It's because having the people in the place doing the thing is generally perceived, especially in this work, to be of government, of serving people and engaging with people, to be the better model. So that's my position as an individual Councilor. I strongly and firmly believe that while KP Law, I would be fine with KP Law at $138,000 if it also meant a city solicitor at $160,000 and an assistant city solicitor at a competitive salary. I got no problem with that. I respect KP Law's specialty and expertise. I just think that there's a fundamental difference between an outsourced legal counsel and an in-house person dedicated to the city of Medford all the time. And I think that it would, make our job as a council as a body easier to know that we're going to have to build that relationship. Every time we're writing an ordinance, we talk to a different person. We have different conversations. We have an hour long disagreement because we don't understand each other's communication style. I mean, it's just, it comes down to like these very personal and, and, but also very tangible realities. Oh, sorry about that. I don't know why my phone is ringing at me. I'm probably telling me I need to go to bed. But in any case, it's just, it, it, It is serving this purpose well enough for us to get work done, but it is not making it easy for us to excel. And I think that has been my experience now in my third term. And I really, I certainly don't think that the more Drastic course suggested is something that we should move towards to say remove this city solicitor position because that'll save another 100,000 for the schools. I think we need to find real sustainable long term solutions and on that question. But I also just think in principle that this is just not the. Certainly not the approach that the council would want, even though I can respect what you're saying that under the current charter, the solicitor reports to the mayor. But I just think that that role in my experience and my conversations with Councilors for many terms of my conversations with people who held the position of solicitor in the past. And in my conversations, as I said, with members of the legal team that we hired to do the solicitor's job right now, there's a lot of value to having that position filled and building that in-house knowledge and interpersonal relationship. So I don't think we're solving it tonight. It's a preliminary meeting. I think that point is incredibly well taken. haven't seen the budget yet, so maybe we'll get somewhere different than this. And I'm glad that we had this conversation now versus having this be a conversation in the middle of June where motions are made that none of us want to make or like. So I'll leave that for another day. Any further discussion on this item, and I will allow you to respond.
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely, and I agree with that. I believe that as you just said, most of them are towns. I'm not aware of a city that does it, I think that was the point that the person I was, and I'm not quoting them and saying unorthodox, that's my description of their words.
[Zac Bears]: And it does. No, and that's very true. And I don't, you know, it sounded like taking it was an option.
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate that, thank you. All right, well, you know, I don't think we're solving it tonight, but I think all of our opinions have been stated clearly. Does anyone else have any comments? There's literally no one else in the Zoom and no one else in the room, so I won't even ask for the public comment. Motion to adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: on the motion to report the questions from the committee tonight to the administration and to adjourn by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favour?
[Zac Bears]: That's a year ago.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, the third time.
[Zac Bears]: So I'm Brian Zarthur. I'm the applicant for the Great American Beer Hall, but I am going to hand this off to Michael Giuliano and Ben Minnix of Eagle Brook to explain the changes we had to make.
[Zac Bears]: That's great.
[Zac Bears]: People can turn left out of Atlas.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, yes, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: If I may, I mean, I don't mind applying for access out the back, but I just don't want it to take it as a condition to hold me up on my CEO. Like we're, I'd say, I don't know, 70, 75% of the project right now are set to open in July. But that was something I will do. It's just, after going through the MassDOT process, it's timely.
[Zac Bears]: We're still doing that though, don't we meet all the conditions with the mass DOT, what we're doing there, so we didn't have to do the side streets?
[Zac Bears]: We're doing the solar light, number two on the list. If you go down, we're doing that. It wasn't all the conditions.
[Zac Bears]: Well, what about what's going to, if we go to two on the list, we're doing that. So I feel like we're, we're, we're going above and beyond and I shouldn't be part of this.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. So I guess my ask is to not do one because we're doing two.
[Zac Bears]: And it sounds like MassDOT- Yeah, if you look at the condition below, it's the solar paneled traffic, which we are doing, so.
[Zac Bears]: I'd prefer to stay here all night if we could. I don't want to have to stop the project tomorrow.
[Zac Bears]: We didn't have the approval from DOT until April 17th. As soon as I got approval, I emailed him. I didn't know if that was going to be approved or not. And I believe you were a part of the The last phone call with I. So, when I became aware of the new plans, I also thought I submitted this for my building permit. If this is the same layout that the city signed off on my building permit.
[Zac Bears]: But I didn't have approval from DOT in February. If I had approval from DOT, I would have submitted that. I had no approval from DOT. As soon as I got approval, I submitted it even way before back in September 5th. Our building permit is based on this design.
[Zac Bears]: So if you want to, I talked to Owen about it. I have my guys. Eagle Brook has been working with Owen this entire project. We've done everything the right way.
[Zac Bears]: So I have no control over mass dot. I had no say in these changes. I did not want to make any of these changes. I didn't want to come back here tonight to do this. I was fine with the acceptance from last year. I have no control over MassDOT.
[Zac Bears]: If you want to come out tomorrow and see it, we're on a July 11th opening, so.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, absolutely. Yeah, I hope to get access out the back. I actually wanted to do it originally and Victor Schrader actually told me to, you know, have everything go on Mystic App. So I will absolutely try and get access out the back. I really like that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, absolutely.
[Zac Bears]: And I'll keep you updated every step of the way, like I did with DOT.
[Zac Bears]: No, thank you. Thank you so much. Uh, I just, I like to think I'm passionate, but I know it comes off as something else.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome.
[Zac Bears]: City Council committee of the whole May 14 2024 Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. 7 present, none absent, this meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole today at 6 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford MA and via Zoom. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the annual budget process. This is preliminary budget meeting number five. The mayor has communicated that the following departments will be present, the library and the police. So without further ado, we'll go in alphabetical order. We'll take the library, we have Director Kerr, and this is a little bit different from previous years. We are meeting with you before. the budget is fully presented. This is, as I said, our fifth meeting, and we're excited to have you. We do have copies of your budgets in front of us, and I've basically been asking four questions of the department. One, what was your budget request? Two, are there any programs or other additions that you didn't request this year that you would be looking at in the future? and then asking you to share kind of the narrative of your budget for your department. And at the end of the presentation, I will just note that if we see a big change from today to when the budget is presented to us, we may invite you back in June for another round. So very quickly, I will just read off here the library budget. For fiscal 24, the budget was $2,012,177. The budget this year is proposed at $2,245,111.90. And the main changes there are in our fixed cost growth category with 104,000 involved in staff increases and moving the office manager from 30 hours to 35 hours. 44,000 also in the staff to ensure that there's a pay increase for the hourly part time and a $90,000 increase in data processing because the cost of tech in our new library is much bigger. than our old library. And with that, I'll turn it over to you.
[Zac Bears]: Great, and feel free, if you wanna walk through this infographic or share your budget narrative, we'd love to hear what you've been doing this past year and what you're going to be up to next year.
[Zac Bears]: I have some extras here too.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Director Kerr. Any questions from members of the Council? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions for our library director, Director Kerr? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Any other questions by members of the council for the library director? Seeing none, I have a few. One, I just want to confirm, there's no headcount increase in the budget as far as I could tell. The only real major change is the 30 to 35 hours for the business manager?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. A follow-up on the part-time hourly salaries. You said that the last time that had gone up was 2019. Okay. And I just want to put it out there. The reason that they were making less than the minimum wage is that technically cities and towns are exempt from the minimum wage law in the Commonwealth. So it was not illegally. Sadly, the laws of the Commonwealth allow that. So I'm glad to see that that's changing. My last question is kind of a three-parter. You mentioned around new staff and programs that you'd be looking for in the future, the program librarian. Could you talk a little bit more about that, what that job does? Has that job existed in the past? And also, are there any other programs or staff that you would like to see maybe in future budgets? I know this is a tough year.
[Zac Bears]: And my last question, you mentioned that some of this is bringing onto the budget items that have been funded temporarily by the Metro Public Library Foundation, part of the new building. Is there anything else that needs to be brought over from that? And also, is there anything that was being funded at the library by ARPA that is being brought onto the general fund?
[Zac Bears]: No ARPA, okay.
[Zac Bears]: Great, that's great to hear.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further questions by members of the council? Seeing none, is there anyone in the public who would like to comment on the library budget? Any members of the boards of trustees?
[Zac Bears]: Feeling good. All right. Well, thank you then. Thank you very much. We will certainly invite you back if anything changes.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Next, we will go to Medford Police Department. We have Chief Buckley and I will say once again, kind of the framing here. I'll quickly read the budget request. If there's anything I missed, feel free to add on to that. Then we'd love to hear about anything that wasn't requested this year that you'll be requesting in the future. Feel free to add that and share your narrative, and then we'll go to questions from the council. So very quickly, I will go here. We have the Manford Police Department budget. We had for fiscal 24, $14,566,880 budgeted. For fiscal 25, the proposed budget is $14,785,259. And we had FY 24 budgeted total headcount 122, FY 25 total headcount 128. And then the change sheet indicates that the fixed cost growth is $317,217 in full-time salaries, and then about $150,000, maybe $140,000 in a number of other items, court time, education incentive, academy tuition, professional services, and laundry. And then in terms of new expenses, there's some new expenses for data processing and for telephone. And with that, I will turn it over to you, Chief Buckley.
[Zac Bears]: If you want to share a little bit about what you've done, Fiscal 24, any plans or new things you'd like to do in Fiscal 25?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chief Buckley. Any questions from members of the council? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I'll go to Councilor Tseng, Councilor Callaghan. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Thank you guys. Any further questions from members of the Council? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I have a few. So just a couple quickly is the accreditation through the post commission. Is that or is it a private accreditation?
[Zac Bears]: Kind of along the same lines, the education incentives a pretty big chunk of your budget. Is that mostly related to officer certification and like on duty related education? Or is it kind of wide open?
[Zac Bears]: And just to clarify, so it's if they have the degree, there's an incentive pay, not that we're paying, or is it that we're paying for them to get the degree?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. The recovery coach for fiscal 25, is that staying with the health department? Or I know that was kind of a grant funded and maybe in a tough spot.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: I've got two more quick questions and I have a question on the head counts. The professional services, legal fees increase. Is that, is that going, I'm just wondering why it's outside of the law department budget.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, so you're getting sued over firearms licenses, basically. Like weekly. Yeah, all right. Maybe not that much, but yeah. And then what is SonicWall?
[Zac Bears]: Cool, yeah, I just didn't, it's got a fun name. All right, my last question is on the headcount. It's kind of a multi-parter. I think Councilor is saying, you answered the question, there's nothing that's ARPA funded that's coming onto the general fund in this budget. We're going from 102 to 107 on patrol and then one dispatcher. And I guess I'm wondering kind of two things. It's described as fixed cost growth, but to me it's new positions from fiscal 24. And I'm wondering if you could just go a little bit more into why that's being considered a not a new position, but a fixed cost change.
[Zac Bears]: That's the patrol.
[Zac Bears]: And so I misread. It's 102 to 107 across the board, not patrol. My apologies.
[Zac Bears]: And the main reason I ask it is it is a difficult year. Um, and it sounds like we're just trying to get half of halfway back to where we wanted, where we were a few fiscal years ago. Um, I just want to raise that point because I think it's important for people to understand what's going on. And in the light of proposals in other departments, I mean, we're talking about net 20, maybe net 40 loss in the school department. We just need to have all the information out there to explain why things are happening the way that they're happening.
[Zac Bears]: I see the effort completely in the money. Some people are going to point to the headcount, you know, and I just think it's important to have a holistic conversation. My last two questions, you said you're at, so we're budgeted for 102 and we're at 97 right now? Yes. And so you're hoping to fill 10 vacancies hopefully if this budget goes through as is?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And then, I think that's it. Do you expect any more retirements or vacancies this year?
[Zac Bears]: And are you having difficulties with the applications getting enough folks in to civil service and to training?
[Zac Bears]: Good. All right. Thank you. I know that was a bunch of questions. It's a big crowd out there.
[Zac Bears]: It's orchestra. The orchestra is coming to perform their statewide winning award winning performance. So want to get them in here as soon as we can. Is there anything else you want to say before I open it up to the public very quickly?
[Zac Bears]: Awesome.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chief.
[Zac Bears]: I can go very quickly through that. Traffic supervisors, we're going from 357, 650 to 361, 525. My understanding is that's fixed costs under the union contract, 2%? Correct, yes. All right, any questions on traffic supervisors? Seeing none, on the Traffic Commission, we're going from 27,800 to 30,500. It looks like that's a 2,700 increase in materials. Do you want to speak to that?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. Any questions on the Traffic Commission, Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate it. Wonderful. With that, I'll open up to members of the public. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on the Police Budget or Traffic Commission or Traffic Supervisors either in person or on Zoom? You can come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, thank you, Chief. Thank you, Lieutenant. Is there a motion on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to adjourn by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Before we call, we won't call the roll, we'll just do a voice vote. We're gonna have an orchestra performance. We have some certificates to hand out. So stick around, we're gonna move to a different Zoom meeting, but we may not get to some of our business for a little while until we get that done. So I think it's a nice day, a good meeting. And with that, on the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. See you soon in regular meeting.
[Zac Bears]: All right, welcome everybody. We have our wonderful Medford High School Orchestra here. They just won the gold medal from MICA, so congratulations and welcome and we're very excited. Mr. Cheng and the members of the orchestra and Councilor Tseng. We're going to hear some of their great performance and then we're going to have some citations and trophies given out. So congratulations and the floor is yours.
[Zac Bears]: So we're going to start with certificates for our middle school ensemble and I'm going to turn the floor over to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: You should go down there. If you want. Yeah, if you want. You're good there? Stay on the wings, whatever's easiest. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: We have one more set of citations to give out, so bear with us. All right, last citation before we start the much less fun city council meeting. I just want to read it really quickly we passed this on April 30. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we congratulate the Center for Citizenship and Social Responsibility students at the Brooks Elementary School for their fundraiser to purchase safety devices for our local United States Postal Service mail carriers. Be it further resolved that we invite these students to the May 14 City Council meeting to receive a citation for their fantastic work. We also had from Councilor Scarpelli be it resolved the City Council recognize the amazing work of Savannah McLaughlin and Adam Costello, members of the CCSR, and 5th grade students from the Brooks Elementary School on providing safety whistles for postal workers. We unanimously approve those resolutions and we are excited to offer these citations tonight. And I will turn it over to Councilor Scarpelli if he would like to say any words.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. If we could invite up Mr. Trotta and Savannah and Adam. First, we'll start with Savannah. The Medford City Council takes pleasure in awarding this council accommodation to congratulate Savannah McLaughlin, member of the CCSR and fifth grade student from the Brooks Elementary School, for their fundraiser to purchase safety devices for our local USPS mail carriers. The realization of this outstanding achievement will undoubtedly lead to successes and accomplishments throughout your life.
[Zac Bears]: Now we have that the Medford City Council takes pleasure in awarding this council commendation to congratulate Adam Costello, member of the CCSR and fifth grade student from the Brooks Elementary School for their fundraiser to purchase safety devices for our local USPS mail carriers. The realization of this outstanding achievement will undoubtedly lead to successes and accomplishments throughout your lives. Thank you. You want to say something?
[Zac Bears]: Great job. All right. Great job. One more and then we can take a photo up here. I just want to also say we have a general citation for the Brooke CCSR. So I don't know if Mr. Trotta, you want to accept it on behalf of CCSR, but congratulations.
[Zac Bears]: 10th regular meeting. Medford City Council May 14th 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Everybody please rise. Salute the flag. I pledge allegiance
[Zac Bears]: Thank you to everybody for bearing with us. We just had a fantastic performance by our Medford High School String Orchestra, and we issued citations for the wonderful gold medal of our MHS Orchestra, silver medal by the Medford Middle Schools Orchestra, and amazing work by our Center for Citizenship and Social Responsibility. So a good first little bit of a meeting, if you ask me. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records, records, the records of the meeting of April 30th, 2024 are passed to Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins, how did you find the records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve the records, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Reports of committees 24045 committee of the whole budget April 30th 2024. This is one of our preliminary budget meetings on the 2024 budget on them. Is there a motion to approve. So, the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor. I oppose motion passes. 24-045 committee the whole budget may 1 2024. This was another preliminary budget meeting on the fiscal 25 city budget, is there a motion to approve motion by Councilor Callahan seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. I opposed motion passes, 24-099 committee of the whole. May 7, 2024. This was a meeting that we held for the annual action plan for program year 50 for the Federal Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant Program. Is there a motion to approve? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24-015, 24-069, and 24-073, Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, May 7th, 2024. I will go to the committee chair, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Council, allowing to approve the committee report, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 24-0C33 and 24-083 offered by Vice President Collins, planning and permitting committee, May 8th, 2024, report to follow. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I believe there's an error on the agenda that is on us. Would you amend to remove the 2-4? We're just, we're just, it's a Claire Blair. There's just one additional paper number. All right. On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. Opposed. Motion passes. Refer to committee for further discussion. 24-351 offered by Councilor Leming. Give me one second here. be it resolved, whereas veterans in the city of Medford need a place to live and are often discriminated against when searching for housing. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the veteran services director shall have the authority to offer available funds to entities that choose to rent to qualified veterans. Be it further resolved that this be discussed with the veteran services director and the city's legal representation in committee. I'll turn it over to Councilor Leming. What committee would you like to refer this to? And the intent of this section is to keep these relatively short. So I know there's a proposed agenda here.
[Zac Bears]: All right, on the motion to refer to resident services and public engagement by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Collins. Director Shaw, is there anything you want to add at this time? You've been with us for a while, so I want to give you the chance to speak on this paper and why this issue is so important. Thank you. And you may need to adjust the microphone. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions on the motion? I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Tseng, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. On the motion of Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Tseng to refer this paper to the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, Director.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to suspend the rules to take papers 24355 and 24100, seconded by? Second. Councilor Tseng, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 24355, review open meeting law complaint. Open meeting law complaint from Deanne Andrasano, dated April 24th, 2024. Acknowledge and review complaint. Discuss council's response to complaint. Vote to take any remedial action if necessary and appropriate. Votes may be taken. We have here an open meeting law complaint summarizing, essentially, that there was a social media post summarizing a previous meeting, and there's a suggestion that that is a violation of the open meeting law. We do have a response from the city's legal counsel here. Please be advised that this office represents the city of Medford carry this KP law to Carrie Benidon, Esquire Director, Division of Open Government, Office of the Attorney General, 1 Ashburton Place, Boston, MA, 02108. City of Medford City Council have a meeting law complaint from Deanna Dersano, dated April 24th, 2024. Please be advised that this office represents the City of Medford, Massachusetts. The Medford City Council, the Council is in receipt of an open meeting law complaint filed by D.N. Andresano dated April 24th, 2024, a copy of which is attached here too as exhibit one. Following receipt of the complaint, the Council requested a brief extension of the deadline to respond, which was granted by the Division of Open Government. On May 14th, the Council met at a properly posted meeting notice for such purposes to discuss the complaint and consider its response. The Council has carefully reviewed the allegations contained in the complaint and following such discussion has authorized this office to submit the following response on its behalf in accordance with General Law Chapter 30A Section 23 and 940 CMR 29.055. Essentially, that's what we would be doing tonight. We're reviewing this response and this would be would submit to the Division of Open Government. Essentially, the process requires that any open meeting law complaint received by the Division of Open Government is received by the City, that the City Council or the body that the complaint is against considers that, and then replies. And I will just read here the main headlines of the response drafted by Council. One, posting a summary of the Council's April 2nd meeting to Reddit did not violate the open meeting law. because the communication was not directed to a quorum of the public body. Two, including contextual information in a social media post did not violate the open meeting law. Conclusion, the City Council respectfully submits that there has been no actionable violation of the open meeting law and considers this matter resolved. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Janelle Austin. And we do have Attorney Austin on the line. I would like to recognize Attorney Austin. If there's anything else you'd like to add, and then we'll hear from members of the Council. Attorney Austin.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Attorney Officer. We go to Vice President Collins and Council Chair Pelley. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, and any councillors welcome to send legal questions to me and I can forward them to the administration. On the motion of Councilor Collins to acknowledge receipt of the open meeting law complaint to accept this draft response as drafted, and I'm happy to be the final work with the Attorney Austin if that's part of the motion as well. All right, I'll go to Councilor Callahan after, we have a second on that motion from Councilor Stanton. Councilor Callahan. Oh, okay, got it. All right, on that motion, essentially to say that there was no open meeting law violation, no remedial action is necessary, and we will submit this to the Division of Open Government. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 24-100. Give me one second here. May 9, 2024, by electronic delivery to the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council, City Hall, Medford, MA 02155, regarding various matters of litigation and claims. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respect the request and recommend your Honorable Body enter Executive Session pursuant to General Law, Chapter 30A, Section 21, Subsection A, Subsection 3. to discuss strategy with respect to litigation concerning Ayala et al versus City of Medford, USDC, US District Court CA number 2210115 MPK, Arbella Mutual Insurance Company as suburbia of Joseph de Almeida versus City of Medford, Middlesex Superior Court CA number 2381CV00687, GEICO as suburbia of Van Nguyen of the City of Medford, Council's agenda state that in the executive session notice that votes may be taken. Attorney Thomas Lane will be present to provide the council with guidance on these matters. Thank you for kind attention to this matter. Sincerely Brianna logo. Current mayor motion to enter executive session on the motion of. Councilor Tseng to to discuss strategy with respect to litigation on the following cases. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. We're going to move to executive session. So we will return to open session once that is concluded.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to reconvene by Vice President. We don't need a motion? Let's just be careful. Motion to reconvene by Vice President Collins, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Vice President Collins. On the motion to suspend the rules for paper 24352 by Vice President Collins, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 2-4-352, petition for a class 2 auto body license, finest auto body. Give me one moment here. Petition for a Class 2 auto body license by Christian Garcia, Finest Auto Body, Inc., 26R, Mystic Avenue, Medford, MA 02155, on file, business certificate, letter of compliance, state tax ID, workers' compensation, petition, treasurer, building department, fire department, police, health department. Councilor Scarpelli, chair of licensing, permitting, and signs.
[Zac Bears]: Give me a second.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to pull it up on the screen.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Could you point out, this is the map. Can you see the map on the screen up here? This is 26R. This is your frontage here. Where would the cars be parked?
[Zac Bears]: So you would have room inside the building for how many vehicles?
[Zac Bears]: I do have Director Hunt here. I'm going to recognize Director Hunt. Alicia Hunt, Director of Planning Development Sustainability.
[Zac Bears]: The clerk has said to me that I believe he concurs with Alicia Hunt that it's a special permit. Right.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: The clerk has also suggested a June 11th.
[Zac Bears]: Maybe after we start doing the process. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: I think, if I could, it sounds like we're going to need some more time on our end. We're going to probably need some coordination again to speak with the city clerk's office and the planning office to make sure that we go through the right process and get you the right permit that you need. One thing that could probably help us with that too, if you could bring maybe some pictures of the space or send some pictures of the space to the planning department and the clerk and that could be included in the packet that we could see where you plan to put the vehicles that you're not using it now where you know just a little bit of a picture so we can understand because yeah you know you're there a lot you know how flood you know the roads are covered with cars yeah yeah thank you appreciate that so um you know i think there's a motion right now to table uh to june 11th um sorry for the delay on that um but yeah if you could take some photos and if you could communicate with our city clerk and our planning department, and Councilor Scarpelli maybe, I don't know if you could, whichever one of you has a business card, if you could share that.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, and the clerk's office, you've been working with Annie Kelly, Ann Marie Kelly, I think their number's 781-393-2425 as well. But there's a motion on the floor to table till June 11th by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins. So we'll try to get all this worked out behind the scenes and hopefully have you back June 11th. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion. All those in favor. Opposed. Motion passes. Motion to revert to the regular order of business by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor. Opposed. Motion passes. 24-099 offered by the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability, Community Development Block Grant Program, Program Year 50, Annual Action Plan. Let me read the legal notice. The public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council on Tuesday, May 14th, 2024. Details posted in the city clerk's office prior to the hearing. The purpose of this public hearing will be to invite the general public and representatives of public service agencies to express comments regarding the city's community development block grant annual action plan for community development and planning. The annual action plan contains the proposed use of community development block grant funds for the program year, which extends from July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025. The Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability We'll be requesting that the Medford City Council authorize Mayor Brianna Lindell-Kern, official representative of the City of Medford, to submit the annual action plan, applications for funds, and all other assurances and certifications to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The City is applying for an estimated $1,252,811 in block grant funds. Funds aren't estimated, and details on the increasing or decreasing of proposed activities and budget can be found within the draft plan. If you need a reasonable accommodation to attend or participate in this hearing, please contact Francis Nwaje by email at fnwaje at metro-ma.gov or by phone at 781-393-2439. And we did receive revised figures as we discussed this at our committee of the whole meeting last week, there was actually an increase of $131,239 from the awarded by HUD through CDBG to the city of Medford. We had the presentation by our public service agencies and we do have attached here the adjustments to the public service agencies, an increase of four, $500 for the community family, our buddy Palin center, an increase of $10,000 for Megan transport LLC, an increase of $2000 for the senior center, an increase of. $185 for the Bedford Public Schools, $5,000 for SCM Community Transportation, $1,000 for the Welcome Project, and $1,000 for the West Bedford Community Center. We do have Laurel Siegel and Director Hunt on. And I will recognize Laurel now if there's anything else you'd like to add to this before we open the public hearing.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So I'll go to Vice President Collins and I'll open the public hearing. Oh, you can open it first. No, you should go.
[Zac Bears]: motion of vice president cons to approve the motion to authorize the action plan seconded by Councilor Sir Kelly. First, I need to open the public hearing. So I want to open the public hearing to anyone in favor, opposed or otherwise to this position, please raise your hand on zoom or come to the podium in person. Let us know what you think of this action plan. So public hearing is open. Laurel, I'm guessing that the city is in favor.
[Zac Bears]: Anyone else who'd like to comment on this public hearing on program year 50 of the community development block grant annual action plan? Seeing none, the public hearing is closed. On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Negative the motion passes. Thank you, Laurel. Thank you, Dr. Hunt. Thank you to all of our applicants and recipients for CDBG funds for the 50th year of CDBG. 24068, Picky's Pizza, 165 Main Street, special permit for hours, continued. Legal notice, their own Medford City Clerk's Office notice of a public hearing, Medford City Council. Public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council and the Howard F. Alden Memorial Auditorium, City Hall 85, George P. Hassett Drive, Medford MA on April 30, 2024 at 7pm, assumed to be posted no later than Friday, April 26, 2024. on a petition from CS Properties, LLC, DBA Pinky's Famous Pizza, 165 Main Street, Medford, MA 02155 for a special permit to amend its hours of operation in accordance with the Medford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94-7.2.1, to operate extended hours of its business, 165 Main Street, Medford, MA 02155, said site being located in Apartment 1, District as follows. Extended hours of operation requested, Monday to Thursday, 11 p.m. to 1 a.m., Friday, Saturday, Sunday, 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. and plan may be seen in the office of the City Clerk, Medford City Hall, Medford MA, call 781-393-2425 for any aids and accommodations. The City of Medford is an EEOA 504 employer. By order of the City Council, Adam Milner to the City Clerk. So we have this continued from our April 30th meeting. We had several communications from residents who were concerned about changes to the hours. I believe the petitioner was able to speak with the chair of licensing, permitting and science subcommittee, Councilor Scarpelli. And I do believe they are present here on the call. I see them here. So I will turn it over to Councilor Scarpelli, and then I'll turn it over to the petitioner to see if there's an amendment to the request. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Great. The council recognized Ms. Carr from Pinky's Famous Pizza to share if there's been any changes to your request to the council.
[Zac Bears]: All right, so the petitioner has amended the proposal to just have this be Friday, Saturday, Sunday, extended from 11 to 12 a.m. So let's reflect that in the record. Mr. Clerk, you got it? Is there any discussion by members of the council before I open it up?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'll ask if there's any, well, if I just could go to the council, then I'll open the public hearing. Any questions by members of the council? Vice President Collins, and then Council Member.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I yell to the neighbors. All right, we'll open up the public hearing. Last thing I'll say is my first job in Medford was a pizza delivery driver, and I'm pretty sure I was making more than what they're paying out of DoorDash and GrubHub, and that was... Definitely. So I appreciate the idea of bringing this back here as good local jobs. So yeah, I'm going to open, well, the public hearing has been open and we continued it from the last meeting. Is there anyone, the now amended proposal is to have extended hours Friday, Saturday and Sunday until midnight. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor, in opposition or otherwise to this proposal? I believe, Ms. Carter, you are in favor, correct?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Anyone else who'd like to speak, raise your hand on Zoom, and I'll recognize you. I see Mary. Mary, if you could provide your name and address for the record, please. I've just requested an unmute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Any further comment on this extended hours permit? Oh, sorry, Vice President Collins, we do have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli. Were you going to comment or make a motion? All right, we have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli to approve with a 30 and 60 day review and also requesting the code enforcement. So that would be code enforcement report back to us 30 days and 60 days of any complaints. And then also when school is back in, maybe we wanna set a date, maybe October 1.
[Zac Bears]: And also report back October 1st of any complaints from the neighbours on the extended hours. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice-President Collins, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm in favor of none negative, the motion passes. Thank you all for working through this process and look forward to getting it reviewed and implemented. Next item is 24353, petition for a lodging house license, Tufts University. Petition for a lodging house license for Tufts University located at 28 Winthrop Street, Medford, MA 02155. We have on file letter of compliance, state tax ID, workers' compensation, petition, treasurer, building department, fire department, police, traffic impact report. And the health department we have addressing the council, Rocco DiRico, government relations director, Tufts University, 14 Capen Street, Bedford MA 02155. Councilor Scarpelli, anything that you would like to say before we hear from Mr. DiRico?
[Zac Bears]: Well, we certainly would like some diamonds flowing. We welcome them. And if you have $2.5 million, we need it. That was a joke. Hey, there won't be any traffic tonight. So, you know, thanks for bearing with us for a couple hours. We appreciate it.
[Zac Bears]: Before we open the public hearing, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Well, you're too late. Councilor Scarpelli already did it. Any further discussion by members of the Council? I just have a question, Rocco. I don't have any community meeting tomorrow night, 630, 6 o'clock on zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I saw that. At least five of us can't be there. We have a zoning meeting at the same time. I don't know if the other two folks who aren't on that committee can. But I did want to put that out there. I saw a lot of news about the housing. And I saw something in Tufts Now about some new housing changes that are happening, trying to bring some more stuff on campus. Is the dormitory on Boston Ave still happening?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And how many units would be added on campus by, I don't know, whatever your timeline is. I don't want to impose a date. Are you sure you have a date with a number attached to it?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other questions, members of the council? And I was, this is a petition on a public hearing, so I'm not opening a public hearing. I just have one more question. Any chance Tufts would support the institutional master plan home rule petition?
[Zac Bears]: Well, I hope someday you'll reconsider. Thank you for the honest answer. Any further discussion on the motion of Council Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: It's 9.15. All right. 24.074, resolution review annual surveillance report. Be it resolved that the Bedford City Council review the annual surveillance report.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Vice President Collins to receive and place on file the annual surveillance report, seconded by Councilor Tseng, any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor. Opposed motion passes. I think this is you George. Yes, 2324356 resolution to support work to ban equity theft state legislation be resolved. The city council sent a letter of support to our state legislators for their work being done to protect homeowners from unfair taxing practices by cities and towns and the work to ban equity theft legislation. Michael, what do you think of the practice of cities and towns taking the entire value of a home to recover tax debt that is less than the value of the property when homeowners fall behind in their property taxes? Senate docket number 2129, filed January 20th, 2023. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, thank you. And I brought this up with the treasurer, Collector Johnson, a couple of weeks ago. And she said, we're not doing it. The city of Medford is not engaging in that practice currently. And yeah, definitely, I believe this legislation is a response to recent, or maybe not a response to, but parallel to recent court decisions outlawing the practice. So definitely makes sense to me. I'll go to Councilor Leming, then any other councillors, and then we'll open it up to the public.
[Zac Bears]: Great, Councilor Kalia?
[Zac Bears]: If you're going to come up and talk about it, if you can share that in the public participation. Great, thank you. Councilor Kelly.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. And I will just add, you know, It's a slightly different thing, and it is not, again, generally an issue in Medford, but the civil forfeiture issue in general is a huge issue of, you know, prior to any sort of legal determination, you know, and this fund, this basically funds county police departments in like Ohio and Tennessee, places, other places in this country, taking private property, people's personal property without the, without any really due process, other than that it's civil forfeiture. So it kind of, to me, is a similar parallel, and certainly something that we don't want to be happening, and certainly something we don't want to be used as a revenue tool. And right now, it's not the policy of the city, but obviously not something that we want as a state law or anything like that. So with that, any further comments from members of the council? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation. First, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. Then we have one hand on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: We can hear you, and thank you for being here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Mr. Cassanetti. It appears you may have frozen. Are you, are you done Mr. Cassanetti?
[Zac Bears]: All right, thank you. Any further discussion? On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins, is there an amendment to change the number to H4624? On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Collins, as amended by Councilor Collins, to change the number to H4624. Mr. Clerk, I'm sorry. All those in favor? I oppose. Motion passes. I skipped over 24354, Resolution Authorize Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee to publish City Council Newsletter. Sponsored by Councilor Leming and myself, be it resolved by the Medford City Council, Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, shall I have the authority to draft and approve a regular newsletter. summarizing the activities of the council and can vote to publish the newsletter about our mechanisms available without referring the draft newsletter to a regular council meeting for a vote. For the result of this paper be referred to the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee as a standing agenda item. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve and refer to resident services and public engagement by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Tseng. And I'll just add, yes, I mean, I think, you know, absent an authorization, for example, we, you know, we don't have to do it every term because it carries over. Subcommittee on licensing, permitting, and signs looks at things before they come to the regular council. We've authorized subcommittees and committees in the past to take action without having to come back to the council. So those are things that happen. But it does have to be on paper. If it's not, then Everything that gets reported in the committee is to come back out of committee, and generally that's true for almost every item anyway. This is a communication, you know, we've authorized committees to look at, you know, inviting people to have conversations or go out and look at different sites in the past. But, you know, outside of those kind of more investigatory and communicative things, anything that hasn't processed by ordinance or resolution or something else obviously needs a vote by the full council before it goes into effect. So we're taking a vote tonight. We'll see if it passes to authorize the committee to send those communications. On the motion of Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Tseng, any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: And I will note that the two people who are not members of that committee are myself and Vice President Collins. On the motion, all those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Motion passes. Do you want to be marked as a no?
[Zac Bears]: Oh, all right. Well, no. No meows. It's yes or no here. No. Okay, here we have one present for a compromise public comment. Public comment email Norman Kaplan leaf blower ordinance. I'd like to go on the record as follows. You don't send the fire department to put out 50% of the fire but unfortunately that's what the city council is doing. As I stated after midnight at the tortured city council meeting in March with evidence to prove it battery powered leaf blowers have reached velocity levels comparable to gas versions. In time, and likely soon, the battery models will become even more powerful. Here's an example of the progress in battery technology. The 2024 gas-powered Honda Civic goes 0 to 60 in 9.2 seconds. The Nissan LEAF all-electric 2024 goes in 6.7 seconds. See motortrend.com. Want to go faster? Jump into the all-new electric Porsche Macan, which takes a mere 3.1 seconds, compared to the gas variant at 4.1 seconds. see Danielle's column in the April 25th 2024 Wall Street Journal. Congratulations certainly to the city council for finally curbing and eventually eliminating the toxic emissions from gas leaf blowers. But why on earth has the council elected to do nothing to seasonally restrict, let alone eliminate the year-round dispersal of dirt, dust, animal feces, mold, fungi, pollens, pesticides, herbicides, and heavy metals which can linger in the air for hours after a powerful battery-operated blower has been turned off? If you wouldn't drink a glass of water with any of that stuff in it, I don't know why you would want to inhale it either. Norman Kaplan, 23, Headland Way. Is there any further public comment in the council chamber on Zoom? I will go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and also raise your hand on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: I believe the answer for this lodging is zero.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, all right, sorry, I missed that. Apparently it'll be assessed and taxed at the standard residential rate.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. A happy note. Councilor Calihan. On the motion of Councilor Calihan to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Tseng. I don't think I missed anything. All right. All those in favor? All right. Opposed? Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just think, I don't think we should use the word dwelling or family. We should just say unit. And we should, I think we should just define it as one unit on a lot, two units on a lot, three units on a lot, four units on a lot, four plus maybe. I don't know. And just leave it at that. And then we avoid, yeah, like, you know, it's one unit, two units, three units, four units. There's three units on that lot. They'd fall under the three unit. I mean, they're probably going to end up in some, I don't think, I think they're still going to be outside of the zone and they're going to be a nonconforming Situation but that's how I would just do it because I think multi-unit solves the problem. I just the word dwelling Kind of a weird word. Um, maybe avoid dw words It just sounds funky. There's only like five or six of them in the English language. But I just think that solves that problem. And it also solves the problem that we have of like, I don't know what this means right now. Detached single family, attached single family. I mean, I kind of know what it means after having looked into it and worked on it for several years. Detached two family versus attached multiple dwelling class A, class B. I mean, the class A, class B, I think it might be worth maintaining a separate definition in the short term, because one of them is more, I think, targeted towards like what Alicia was talking about, the four to 10 and maybe occasionally 15 units, smaller buildings where you have a lot of units inside, like what looks to be a more standard residential structure. And then the class B is the less than six stories or 75 feet, which is kind of more the bigger Lumiere type thing. So, I mean, right now, I don't think it's particularly clear that that's what's happening, but we kind of have two single family definitions with the two family attack, and then like a two family and a three family, and then like a small multifamily and a big multifamily, but I think we could just change that in the, and maybe we don't do that right now to all of them, but we could at least do the multiple dwelling to say, x number of units on a lot. Maybe class A is 4 to 10, even though it doesn't really align with the definition, because the definition right now is, where is it? A building or structure containing three or more not over three stories in height is technically what class A is. And then the second one is three or more not containing not over six stories in height, which I think also but not including group of three or more attached single family dwellings. So that excludes the three family triple decker. Um, so I think it might be worth at least saying four or more units on a lot for, uh, but not over three stories in height and then four or more units in a lot, not over six stories in height, something like that in the short term. I think in the longterm we should just move away from everything that we have right now and kind of try to redefine it more in a, in a clearer way just to talk about how many units are present on a lot. And then I think at the larger levels, we'll end up in situations where that's not actually the best way to describe the structure as well, like I think we might want to talk about. I actually, in some sense, for large multi-unit buildings, I think we may be in a better place to talk about them in terms of stories versus in terms of units. Um, so I think that might be something maybe we look at down the road, but that might be a way to at least get us towards some more, uh, household type neutral and also clear, like plain English definition.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And if we did that though,
[Zac Bears]: There's a use that's not defined.
[Zac Bears]: Three or more dwelling structure has a separate residential use and it's under, I'll leave it to you, but it's attached single family dwelling.
[Zac Bears]: I take it as just attached units, whether it's up and down or side to side.
[Zac Bears]: Right. That's really an interesting- That's why that definition under attached single family dwelling has me think that the two dwelling structure is also a two family stacked as well as a row house.
[Zac Bears]: Otherwise there's no definition.
[Zac Bears]: To me, that's a row house.
[Zac Bears]: And neither does the three family in the use table, which to me is only existing as an exception to the dwelling multiple definition in the clause after the work, but not including a group of three or more attached single family dwellings. I don't know. Like that's where that.
[Zac Bears]: Exactly.
[Zac Bears]: And the only question I have there is I think it's actually all pretty easy, which is that the single family, If you look at the use table, the single family detached is allowed basically everywhere except apartment 3A commercial and office. The two families are allowed in general residence plus apartments. Three families are allowed in apartments only. Detached two-family building, which I don't really understand what that is. That's one that confuses me. And then it looks like if it's under three stories but more than three units, but not a triple-decker, that's allowed in apartment one, apartment two, apartment three, and commercial one. And if it's more than three units, but between three and six stories, that's allowed in apartment two, apartment three, and commercial one.
[Zac Bears]: Is it not actually? Like top?
[Zac Bears]: Is that detached?
[Zac Bears]: Right. And this is where I think it just gets.
[Zac Bears]: I think in the interim, I think like to pass something that clarifies this issue without breaking the zoning, yes. And I think the only thing that comes in there is that there is on the four plus, and I guess arguably on the three plus right now, and that's where I think we should have a three. It's not clear to me exactly what the intent of the existing table of uses is when it comes to a three-unit building. Other than that, if for some reason there was a three-unit building that was over three stories or under six stories, that it wouldn't be allowed in an apartment one district. So that's the only thing I think where there's a potential conflict that comes in is if we do a four-plus definition, it looks like it would need to be split between something that's four-plus and under three stories and four-plus and over three stories so that between three and six stories, so that that second grouping wasn't in the apartment one district. Just if we're not actually trying to change that right now, if we're trying to correct an issue, but not trying to change the policy of what's allowed where.
[Zac Bears]: I just think on this one, we're pulling a thread, and it's like a thread in a definition that's now a thread in the use table that's going to end up being a thread in the dimensional table. And I almost wonder if it makes more sense for us to not fix the definition and just as part of this process. Basically, I think we're just going to end up creating two work buckets, which is like we're going to figure out a better way to say what we're already doing. And that's going to take a bunch of working time. And then we're going to change it again. to what we want it to be. And I just wonder if it might be better to just do the second part.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not opposed to it, I just would not want to also create a situation where they're not sure which, you know, which definition applies to which use of dimensional requirement. Right. But I don't, you know. But in any case, I just wanted to quickly also ask a process question. I'm fine. We can kind of circle back to this. Maybe we'll just rest on and go through some of the easier definitions and our brains will work better, at least mine. is the idea tonight to, so I remember we were talking about basically a few things. We wanted to do definite, basically the first bucket of work was definitions, a site plan review, update to level site plan review language, and then some updates to the use table. In terms of what we're talking about tonight is the intention to report out from here to the regular council for next week's meeting some of those definitions and some of the use table changes so that that can start going to CD board. Is that kind of where we're, Is that where we're at?
[Zac Bears]: And just to clarify as well, maybe it's the clerk or Alicia or Danielle or all of you really. So let's say we went with the second option and we said, we're not going to report anything out tonight. We're going to have a meeting on the 22nd. Hopefully, we'll have the actual draft ordinance language for everything relatively in a place. And maybe Scott will have had a chance to take a look at some of it. If we were to port that out of here, then it'd be in council on the 28th, then we'd refer out to community development board. It's 14 days that it has to be advertised for CD board and then another 14 days for the council, right?
[Zac Bears]: And so could we have an ad that goes out that the Community Development Board would consider it at some point in June, and then we could consider it at our June 25th meeting? Is that enough time if we were to refer it to Community Development Board on May 28th?
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, of May?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. So the other option would be try to get some stuff out the door tonight, but I think that we might be better off personally. Going through these definitions, saying which ones we're comfortable with just as a checkbox, coming back in two weeks with some edits to the definitions, hopefully having the site plan review framework draft also in two weeks, maybe even the GIS zoning map. And then if we have the definitions, we probably also have the use table changes. So then we could do that all at once.
[Zac Bears]: The both nights being the 5th and the 26th of June.
[Zac Bears]: And if they were to want to the 26th, we could. either open or re-advertise for our July meeting.
[Zac Bears]: All right, yeah. Okay, I think that's the way to go, personally.
[Zac Bears]: We have an interesting choice as to be fun or serious with this definition. Doggy or dog. I don't really have a position.
[Zac Bears]: The second... If I could just jump in on that really quickly. In the definitions, it is eating place drive-thru already, so that may have just been... Is it still drive-in eating place in the use table?
[Zac Bears]: I just found it. It's a eating place without drive-thru, eating place with drive-thru in the use table. It is eating place and then eating place drive-thru in the definitions.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Yeah, and it definitely makes sense to add a cafe, coffee shop definition.
[Zac Bears]: If you haven't done the research on it yet, totally understand. Is there a terminology that is consistent, like eating place, eating establishment?
[Zac Bears]: Or in the state law.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, it does. They all seem a little convoluted.
[Zac Bears]: I think that's worth discussing. Now, we had a lot of discussions about this when we did the recodification, and I believe where we landed on that, most of those discussions, I think Councilor Scarpelli and I were the only ones here for. The final vote was that the consanguinity blood relation stuff is totally out the window. We can't do that. That's illegal. And we wanted to define household, which I think the definition in here does meet the intent, which is everybody who lives in a single housing unit. That's a household. And I guess what I'm hearing you say is, A, if we want to rehash that whole argument, we had like three meetings on that argument. I think it might be worth looking at the meeting reports from those meetings to see why we landed where we landed and what we voted on for specific motions. But is what you're saying that we need a definition of both because there's elements of state law? Is there something outside of our zoning that would require us to have a separate definition for each of those terms?
[Zac Bears]: And I guess, let's just guess, I guess, you know, what's the question we're trying to solve for? And do we do that by defining the people or the structure? Right. What's the better way to to go after that? I just think when we start, I think it's just really hard to enforce housekeeping unit. I don't know how. What if the landlord says, hey, everybody, tell them all you want to live together, which they will do. If I'm a landlord who built a structure and now we've regulated that structure to say you can't do what it was designed for, then there's going to be an incentive for them to lie.
[Zac Bears]: or even the, I mean, I don't know, if we can, by zoning, regulate what you were talking about, like the separate bathrooms per bedroom. I don't know. I have more questions, but I just, if Councilor Cohen's had any.
[Zac Bears]: We need to look at short-term rental. lodging house definition, all of the, dormitory definition, all of the definitions and uses where we're talking about how different groups of people are in using different housing units and try to align that to a new structure. Because again, we didn't do that in the recodification, right? The lodging house definition and the lodger definition is still, I think you could apply those to these situations, right? You could, I mean, if the building department wanted to, I could see them, saying if there's seven locked bedrooms and, you know, I can see them applying that definition to it. And I don't know that that's fair either. I think we should take this whole, I think right now, the definition of household fits what we're saying, right? Like it fits the intent of the council's vote on the recodification, which was that a household is the people who live in a unit. Now, if we need to redefine what a unit is to say that if there's a single family structure with seven locked bedrooms, that's seven units and not one unit, or it's seven micro units or a multi-tenant arrangement or something like that, I think that makes sense. But I think, again, it's like you pull that thread and then there's like four other things that we would need to adjust and address to fix that too. So that to me seems like it's almost a bucket of questions and something that we should look at like holistically together. as we update the whole ordinance. And I just also want to throw in, it could be worth saying that if you're doing this sort of arrangement, you can't have parking permits or something, right? I don't know. That's something that we're considering and I know Somerville has considered it when that has been a concern for on-street parking.
[Zac Bears]: If I may, Vice President Collins, I think what we may have identified here, like the nexus for why this came on, is that by changing the definition, we've unearthed a new use. rather than that, that we need to adjust the definition of household. I think that might be like how I would think about it. Like there's a use that doesn't quite fit dormitory lodging house, but also that our definition of household being anyone who wants to live together as long as it's safe and appropriate for the health code can live in a unit together. That is, I don't think that principle is something we want to change. I just think by changing it, we may have allowed an undefined use that we had never seen before, or a variant of the lodging house use that is kind of unexpected and different.
[Zac Bears]: I just think you can't do better than Chapter 48.
[Zac Bears]: That's the insurance for... I think I know what a travel trailer is.
[Zac Bears]: That's interesting. I didn't realize we did it that way. I mean, I knew about the under occupancy, but I didn't think about single family only instead of just
[Zac Bears]: Not really, I was just thinking of the tiny homes would become more useful if we were starting to look at dimensional, small, non-conforming lots, 2,000 square feet, 2,500 square feet. Maybe you could put a tiny home by right, something like that, where it's really like a tiny little lot that we can't do anything with right now, but maybe that use would make sense.
[Zac Bears]: Just with the, do we think this is a typo where it just says accessory, and it should say accessory use? Or would the definition of accessory stay? Or would we just get rid of the, and as referred to in this chapter, also means a use which does not alter or impair the character of the premises on which it's located or of the neighborhood? I'm just wondering. If we're just adding the word use and taking out that second clause, or if we're adding a whole other definition that mirrors the.
[Zac Bears]: There's just a definition for accessory, which seems... Yes.
[Zac Bears]: There is already an accessory structure definition.
[Zac Bears]: I'm fine with it. I just don't think we want to end up with something that says accessory that then says exactly the same thing as accessory use, except for one phrase. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: We don't have accessory use right now. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: It also might be worth doing structure comma accessory because there's structure.
[Zac Bears]: Although it just says structure, it doesn't say structure comma principle, so.
[Zac Bears]: I actually, if I may, it might be worth striking and replacing the whole section. like just writing up the new section as we want it, rather than doing the whole definitions. Because I think we still also have this issue where we have the zoning changes that we made last fall, which we're still waiting to get back from KP Law to add to Muni Code. So once Muni Code doesn't reflect those changes, it might be worth, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Maybe we could do a red line version, but also a start could replace like as the formal, like the red line version could be a supporting document, but that the formal thing that we're doing is striking and replacing the full section just to make sure that we have everything that we want. But I agree we should have a red line. It might even need to be a red line and a green line. We might want to also have, make sure people can see what was changed last fall when we passed that.
[Zac Bears]: There is no definition of footprint. There is gross floor area, which mentions the same things.
[Zac Bears]: I actually don't... Only for the reason that if we change this now before we change other things later, it's going to mean we can build fewer things in the interim. Is the intent to change it just because it doesn't make sense that lock coverage wouldn't include a non-principal structure? because I think logically that's true, but also I think if we go down this road, then between now and whenever, if ever, there's an adjustment, it just means it's less likely to build an ADU based on lot coverage, detached ADU, or we have these situations where we have detached structures, and I'm guessing if they're not the principal structure, they're currently not counting towards lot coverage, which means that you can actually build a little bit more on the lot. So it's just from the pure perspective of, of I think we all agree that the dimensional requirements are kind of nuts. And this is going to add further burden on the dimensional requirements to make this change, even though I agree that logically it doesn't make any sense that a non-principle structure is not included in the law coverage measurement. I just think it could create a negative impact in the interim between fixing this definition and then fixing the dimensional requirements and the law coverage requirements.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just throwing it out there. I mean, since we're coming back in a couple of weeks, just to put that one out there. Let's assume that we don't address dimensional requirements. I think we all agree we're going to do that as part of this project, but let's just assume we don't. And then suddenly this stays there. I just think it means less stuff gets built. Fewer ADEs are going to be able to be permanent because of a lot coverage dimensional requirement. But I don't know how building is currently interpreting this anyway, so I guess that's my one caveat. If they're saying it obviously doesn't make sense that block coverage wouldn't include all the structures on the lot, then my point is proved. I don't know. Right.
[Zac Bears]: But that's just what I'm concerned about is like right now, great. If you want to have an ADU, if it's a 30% lot coverage and you put the ADU, it doesn't count towards that. The lot's a little more covered. I mean, I'm not also advocating that we get rid of all permeable services or anything with anyone. You know, I don't know. It just seems to me to be a point where the illogical structure of our zoning ordinance and the illogical wording of this definition, which is more illogical, is kind of where I'm at. To me, it's the dimension.
[Zac Bears]: That's my suggestion. That's just my, but I'm also open to an argument in the other direction. You know, I don't, I'm not strongly, I just think that's the only, only negative consequence I could see in the short term of making this change before we adjust the lot coverage requirements themselves.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Yeah. And I think my general principle on a lot of this is that we don't want to do something early on. I don't think we ever want to make a change that's going to reduce the buildability of the lots, even if eventually we'll make a change that will rectify that.
[Zac Bears]: That would be fine with me. I also just like the idea of putting a pin in it and coming back, maybe making it part of the dimensional requirements discussion to update this definition and any other definitions.
[Zac Bears]: Just to throw out there that I don't see setback in the definition or the use table, or sorry, the dimensional table. And now looking through it, but it is spread everywhere else. But my favorite thing is in the plain development district, we have something called the yard setback. We want to get really, I don't even know.
[Zac Bears]: And if that's a project that is bigger than two weeks, I don't think there's an issue. like if I was going through this I would say that one and Lock coverage being lumped in with dimensional part requirements could be like two things that maybe are worth saying are happening after but like the medical uses Medical uses the The actual dwelling stuff like around the one two three multi and the eating establishments, like those are things I think, if I was picking and choosing what to do in two weeks and what maybe needs a bigger conversation, I would say that the household, different ways that people live and the lot coverage dimensional requirements would be things we'd maybe punt. And I'd like to leave this idea of like, let's put in these different things now on the one unit, two unit, three unit, multi-unit thing, and then we can work all that out later. But I think, yeah, that's just my suggestion again. But if you guys think it's doable to talk about dormitory lodging, multi-tenant.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I would just throw into, I think like maybe by the end of June, Some of us, maybe, I don't know, some combination of all of us, I think we'll come up with kind of like taking everything that's in the long A and B lists and maybe we can start kind of putting them into like project-based groupings. I know some of them are already, some of them I think are still a little bit split out, but like I think we've identified two tonight. But maybe I'd have to go back and look to see if we've already identified them. But we've added the law coverage definition to the dimensional question, which is definitely a question we want to answer. And then I think we've kind of come up with this question of how do people live in different formations of people living in different styles of housing, which I don't know that we really had before. So that might be another kind of grouping. But that's how I was trying to think about it when we came up I'm just trying to think about like the topics, you know, under each topic maybe there's like a project type.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Great. So that makes sense. That sounds right. So just I just want to make sure that kind of package, and this is the stuff we want to pass before we want to report out from the 22nd to the 28th meeting so that an ad will do all the advertising so that CD board can hear it and then we can start a hearing on the 25th of June is all these definitions minus the questions around household and the question around lot coverage, site plan review, draft. the table of use and the map with the updated colors. Well, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: And I think Councilor Collins was talking about, so I wanted to separate that out.
[Zac Bears]: Right. I think that's package one. And then you just mentioned some ADU-related, climate-related, inclusionary-related. Starting with that on the 22nd, we then have two June meetings to workshop that. Maybe we, at the second or third one, are talking about a second package that we could consider over the summer.
[Zac Bears]: Is that part of the site plan review, the Dover piece?
[Zac Bears]: We do have a use, right? We have an other municipal uses, use eight under community uses on the use table and it is a yes by right in all districts.
[Zac Bears]: And I agree with that. I was just just pointing that out and honestly it might be worth consolidating the public fire station public library and other municipal uses into or if Maybe with what you're writing, we can exempt them. I don't know. But I'm just saying those are in there. I don't know that they're useful. I don't know that the parking code and the loading code are really meaningful. And I'm certain that it narrows the flexibility of the city, so.
[Zac Bears]: I think that makes sense. And I think also, I think it would be useful for us to take everything that's in the climate plan sheet and basically say, OK, these ones are CR, climate resiliency. These ones are HP, housing production. These ones are, and put them into the topics that may also be worth it. And I keep asking you to reformat this. So I'm actually happy to help. But maybe if I have a second. can put a framework in. But again, I think that these topics should be considered areas where any specific change or idea goes to a specific topic, and then we can consider the topics discreetly, rather than having different pieces of different topics being discussed at different meetings, because I think we're just going to start getting really confused. about that. So like, I think it's useful. I think what we're doing now, it's saying, let's sort all of the zoning related plan recommendations into topics is a valuable thing to do. I think once we've done that, we should not be having like a climate plan related meeting, but then going to say, okay, let's look at everything from the climate plan, the comp plan and any other plan that went to the climate resiliency bucket. And we're having a meeting on that bucket. And like, I think tonight we have Um, you know, the block coverage definition is definitely going to this UDR bucket. So it might even be worth like now that we have the phase one phase two, it might even be worth being like, we have a, you know, labeling them as like a CR one, a CR two, or some, that might not be the best number for each item, but also sorting, sorting each like idea by phase and then by topic bucket. Um, cause then probably, maybe even later in June or certainly after June, we can start having conversations about each specific topic bucket area. And maybe we could spend some time in June also taking the comp plan and sorting that out into the buckets. And I also just want to flag that I think there are probably one or two maybe new new buckets or buckets that we didn't consider and I'm just seeing it going through how much of this is like definitions process and format like maybe there should just be like a general a topic that's just like general or legal definitions format and then maybe there should be a topic that's very explicitly about like permitting and process. Cause those just seem to be two things that are missing. And then I don't know exactly where our discussion about this type of the housing, how people, different people like with the different ways that people live. I don't know what bucket I'd put that, put that in. Maybe it could be housing production. Maybe it could be housing affordability. I don't think it's worth, it's all an entire topic area. Cause I do think it's pretty, you know, specific, but, but that would just be a way for me. Cause I think like we keep kind of getting, And it's growing pains of learning. And we're figuring out how to do a very, very ambitious thing and talk about 25 million things. How do we do that in an orderly way? It just seems like we're going down different paths and threads. And I think just having even clearer, taking what we've already developed and making it slightly clearer. If we have an idea, it goes into a topic-based bucket. When we get to that, that's when we'll talk about it. It will help us to make sure that everything we want to get done gets done.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I do want to point out kind of what you said about what you said, you said ADUs,
[Zac Bears]: Right. I think, like, to be honest, I think we should take the mapping and put it in the mapping district's bucket, take the ADUs, put it in the housing production bucket, take inclusionary, put it in the housing affordability bucket, and then do that rather than necessarily front-loading. Sure. But I also think, like, right now we're kind of still in almost I think through June 30th we're in the phase of what are the quick things that we can do and then how are we still structuring the format of this process so that all the other things and ideas that we come up with happen between July 1 and whenever we finish up in 2025, that that happens in an orderly way. And I don't necessarily think we have to go entirely sequentially, like we can't do X until we've done Y, but I do think the more that a meeting could be like, we could say we're having two meetings on all the housing production ideas and then get that out of the way versus having like one housing affordability topic and one housing production topic and one climate resiliency topic in a single meeting. I just think that's going to end up getting, we're going to get less done.
[Zac Bears]: And just for me, if by June 30th, all that we had done was this package that we just agreed to, and we had reviewed the major plans and put all of the different zoning related items into their specific buckets. And we had said, these are the buckets, it's the final list. And maybe we'd started to calendar out when we're going to take up specific things. I would be fine with that. If there are PDS priorities of things we want to get done over the summer or discrete things that we don't want to refer into those buckets and take sequentially, I'm fine with that too. But I do think we should try to limit that, not have that be our process, but have it be kind of exceptions to the process because of things that we want to fast track, but have most things fall into just because I'm starting to get brainwashed on what we're doing.
[Zac Bears]: Keep the paper in committee and adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: city council committee of the whole may 7 2024 mr. Kirk please call the roll present present present five present two absent the meeting is called to order there'll be a meeting of the Medford City Council committee the whole 6 p.m. the Medford City Council chamber second floor Medford City Hall 85 George P has to drive Medford ma and via zoom to submit written comments please email a her to be set Medford dash ma dot gov the purpose of this meeting is to discuss paper 2 4-0 0 9 the community development block grant action plan for fiscal year 2025 This is for community development and planning. The action plan contains the proposed use of community development block grant funds for the program year, which extends from July 1st, 2024 through June 30th, 2025. CDBG is a program of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that began in 1974. Fiscal 2025 will be the city of Medford's program year 50 of CDBG funding. Happy 50th birthday to CDBG. And Councilor Collins has joined us as well. So with that, I will turn over to our CDBG manager, we'll see.
[Zac Bears]: Just if I could ask, do you know what that's going to bring us to for the public services funding?
[Zac Bears]: Anything else you want to say before we hear from some of our applicants?
[Zac Bears]: Great. We recognize Megan Fidler-Carey. Hi, Megan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Megan. Any questions for Megan, for members of the council? Seeing none, we will go to our next applicant, which is the Welcome Project. Sarah Lodgen, if you could give us a summary of your request.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. Do we have any questions for the applicant from the Welcome Project? Seeing none, Laurel, I do have a question. For the folks who did not receive, who requested money but were not recommended, are we expecting them to make a case for themselves?
[Zac Bears]: All right, great. Do we have anyone from Community Family?
[Zac Bears]: Great. I'll recognize Stacey. Stacey, welcome. If you could tell us a little bit about your application request for CDBG funds for the community family.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Any questions for community family? Stacey, I just wanted to say thank you. I was, as a Medford public school student, volunteer in community service at the Buddy Cohalen Center and Alzheimer's has affected my family. So really appreciate it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. Next, we will go to Megan Transport, LLC. Right behind you, Laurel.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. You might need to get a little closer. We're working on upgrading the system. You can grab the chair behind you, too.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. Any questions? Oh, sorry, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. We will go to our next Applicant the Medford Council on Aging will go to Pam Kelly and give us a description of your request, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Kelly. Any further questions for Director Kelly and the Council on Aging? Seeing none, thank you, Pam. We will go next to Mystic Valley YMCA, Mystic Community Market.
[Zac Bears]: Wonderful. Hi, Debbie.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much, Debbie. Any questions for our Mystic Valley YMCA Mystic Community Market applicant? Seeing none, next we'll go to SCM Community Transportation.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you so much. Do we have any questions for SCM Transportation? All right, okay, seeing none, we will go next to the West Bedford Community Center.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and if we could just before we go there, could you explain the difference between the CDBG and the CDBG-CB?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. So yeah, we'll go to ABCD first.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any questions for ABCD? I have one, Mr. President. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Laurel. Any further questions? Thank you so much. And we will go next to Housing Families.
[Zac Bears]: Great, Jaina.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Dana. Could you just share what your goal was and what you exceeded it by? That would be just helpful.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions for housing families? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions for housing families? Seeing none, we can jump back to West Medford Community Center. I don't know that anyone's popped on.
[Zac Bears]: Would you be able to share their information, or is there another thing that you guys would like to do for this process?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Laurel. All right. Well, we've heard from everybody on the list. Is there anybody who has any further questions, or is there any member of the public who would like to comment at this time? I have Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: I think that's what they're saying. Any further questions, discussion, comments by members of the public? Seeing none, we'll go to member of the public, Eileen Lerner. Name and address for the record, please. Eileen, I'm asking you to unmute. There should be a button popping up on your screen that will ask you to unmute. Yeah, she just raised her hand though, so. It looks like we're having some technical difficulties. There will be another chance to comment at the public hearing. I don't know, Laurel, if you want to go through what the rest of the process is here.
[Zac Bears]: So we have a public hearing at our May 14th meeting.
[Zac Bears]: And then the final will go to, but then that will be our last role in the process.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Is there anything else? I know that public comments tend to be a good thing. In this sense, for the CDBG program, I know we've definitely solicited them in the past. Could you just say a little bit more about how folks can make their comments?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Well, thank you so much. Any further questions from members of the council? Is there a motion to refer this out to the regular meeting? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to report the paper out of committee and adjourn. Second. Seconded by Council Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. And we are joined by Councilor Callahan as well.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none negative. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: City Council, Committee of the Whole, May 1st, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. present, five present, two absent. The meeting is called to order. There'll be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, and via Zoom. To submit written comments, please email ahertovice at medford-ma.gov. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss paper 24-045, the annual budget process for fiscal 2025. And this is our fourth preliminary budget meeting of the fiscal 25 budget process. We have the following departments present. We have our human resources, also health insurance and workers comp, assessor, building, diversity, equity, inclusion, and treasury. Is there anyone who would like to jump to the front of the line if they need to? Or are we comfortable going in order? Seems like everyone's okay with going in order, so we'll go in order, and I will start with human resources, health insurance, and workers comp. I'm not sure, I think you might just, Lisa, might just be doing the human resources part, and then maybe Bob and Courtney, are you doing health insurance and workers comp? Oh, you're doing that too, great. Ah, they're your muscle, okay. I was like trying to suss out why you were here. Great, so I will go over, We'll do HR department, then we can do health insurance, then we can do workers comp. I'll just go over the top line really quickly. The fiscal 25 proposed budget for human resources, $267,537.23 is up from $202,357 in fiscal 24. And according to the change sheet, there are two increases here. One is, and again, this is in the fixed cost growth area, moving an ARPA-funded position onto the general fund budget, it looks like. And the second is the, and it's the only item that's a new expense, is implementing safety compliance management leadership disciplinary trainings and a department head training. Great. So I like to just ask for kind of four-ish questions or three questions and a statement. and you can take it from there director just let us know anything else you'd like us to know about the budget I did a very very short summary so feel free to share anything more that you'd like to share and then we'd love to hear about any programs that you did not request this year that you may like to request in the future, any staffing really, any expense that you envision your department needing but that we weren't able to request this year. And then we'd love to hear about what you have done over this current fiscal year 24, what your plans are for the next fiscal year. And then just describing the process, which I've been doing every meeting since this is a newer This is a brand new process for the city. We started with, this is following our new budget ordinance, which was just ordained last night by the city council. And we had been following it though in advance, and we appreciate the administration for working with us on that. In March, the city council developed budget recommendations and submitted them to the mayor. And now we are holding preliminary budget meetings with our department heads, which is a departure from past practice. We're holding them before the final submission of the budget by the mayor at the end of May. And then we will consider the budget at that time and how that is directly relevant to you. If there's anything that changes significantly from what we've talked about tonight, by the in the actual budget presentation, either we might invite you back or the administration can say we want to come back with the department. And then we can hear more from you in June. But if not, then this may be the one time that you're here with us for the budget session. So that's really it. As I said, all you just what anything more about your budget, anything you see that in the future that wasn't in this budget, and then we'd love to hear about the the past and future of your department's work. Are we on?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Director Crowley. Any, um, comments or questions from the council?
[Zac Bears]: you. Yeah, um, comment on that.
[Zac Bears]: our city council budget recommendations, which we submitted March 20th to the administration. And we did receive a response from the mayor that we're looking at putting a paper before the council around the solicitor. So, you know, I think that is probably going to be around the budget time and the personnel ordinance. But I did want to say that that was that we received our budget recommendation. So we did get the administration's response on that, um, and agree with Councilors Scarpelli. That's a priority, and we're open for more details, but also just wanted to highlight that that was, um, a benefit of our new budget process that we did submit that recommendation, and I will go to Councilor Leming, and then I do have a question as well. Councilor
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. And my question is, jumping back to the classification and compensation study, I heard basically that a bunch of the classification piece of that is being implemented administratively over the next few months, so I think that's great. Always glad to hear something from the 80s or the 90s is being brought to today. I think that's really good. And the more we do that, the less we'll have to do it in the future, right? In that groove. On the compensation side of the study, the council has had a lot of questions around compensation. Councilor Scarpelli raised one about the solicitor's office, the law office, and whether the pay and the compensation is sufficient to bring on staff. And our experience with that over the last couple of years seems to be that it isn't. you know, but I think in general, the council is very interested in updating the personnel ordinance, something that we have talked about as getting the personnel ordinance back on Muni code. And we didn't want to do that until we had worked through the process of, um, you know, making sure it was accurate and getting all the figures correct. And I know that's part of the compensation element of the study. So I was just interested to know, um, what the timeline is on that part of the project.
[Zac Bears]: And that would include the compensation? It's all one package. Okay, great. And then I assume that we would be able to see it? Yeah, of course. And then guessing that we'll talk about updating the personnel ordinance
[Zac Bears]: I will say that we have done some mini
[Zac Bears]: Okay. That's great. Yeah. And I think for us, you know, for me, I mean, there's some obvious positions where it seems to be off scope.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And so that's great. I think for us, the other is just the logistical piece of people always ask us, so how much do these people get paid or what's the salary rate? I'd love to be able to start pointing them again. I don't know.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I do do that. I'm happy to do that. But it seems at some point prior to this council being on the council and prior to the clerk and prior to having HR and prior to this mayor's administration, the personal ordinance was pulled off of the ordinances website. I don't know why. So I'm guessing probably because it was updated so frequently, we now have Let's say the most favorable explanation would be that it was being updated so frequently that we didn't want to pay the current page cost. We have a better contract with MuniCode now, so it's much easier to update the website. So if that was the reason, we'd solve that.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further questions on the HR side of things before we jump into health insurance and workers' compensation? Councilor Scrively, do you have your hand raised? I think not.
[Zac Bears]: I thought so, but Adam was doing his due diligence. Great, so that's the human resources piece of the budget. Thank you for that.
[Zac Bears]: Next is insurance. And this is budgeted fiscal 2024, 25, oh wow, 25,500,000. And it's going up to $28,255,000 for fiscal 25. And it looks like the main driver of this is a $2.725 million increase in the health, dental, and life insurance budget. And I mean, that is the vast majority of this budget already. but also $120,000 in insurance premiums. So obviously, especially in any budget, this would be a significant increase, especially seeing it this year. It is a large chunk already of the $9 million. dollars that is available above last year's general fund budget. So if you wanna talk about why that's happening, I understand we did talk about it a little bit with Bob, Director Dickinson last week, but I understand it's because the GIC rates are going up. But if you wanna get into that more.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And it is obvious, you know, rates are going up 10%, that'll go up 12%, so that's pretty much in line with this estimate. Is there anything other than the health insurance, the other insurance premiums, or any other thing you want to touch on? Did you use the same process to kind of arrive at those figures?
[Zac Bears]: So, yeah, I know the organization that I work for in my full time job, we we plan for everybody to take family insurance.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And so you're, when you talk about budgeting for you're talking about like just the vacant positions, you're expecting that they would all be filled and everyone would take the biggest health insurance they could take.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions on the insurance budget or fiscal 25? seeing none, I'm just going to make one comment, which is that I want to note again, you know, hopefully we have that averaging out over years, but, you know, 10, 12%, 11% is more than 2.5%. And when we have the growth of costs like this, it eats up whatever the city is able to raise in the levy. We're spending, you know, we're so far through this budget, I think there's been one department that has had a new expense and it may have been HR for $21,000 for training. Everything else has been a fixed cost growth, a union contract or health insurance costs or increased cost of office supplies, paper and ink, you know, and it's more than 2.5%. So when we talk about what the city is able to do every year, we are doing more with less. Our costs are going up faster than our revenues are increasing. And it means that we are at best maintaining what we have and not really adding very much. So I just want to make that point, because as we go through this process and we see budget after budget after budget, all we can do is keep what we have, even though we hear from departments. And it's no slight against anyone. It's systemic. We have a systemic revenue shortage. every department needs one more person to take on a function, or a halftime person, or new programming, or wants to launch something that could help benefit our residents, and we can't implement it. And so this seems to be the big driver this year with the insurance, with $3 million of our $9 million going towards that. But I just wanted to raise that point.
[Zac Bears]: Right, and that point wasn't the point I was, you know, I wasn't trying to spite you at all.
[Zac Bears]: And that's the thing, you know, we're scraping for essentials. Yeah, I get it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Any further questions on health insurance or I guess the insurance department, which is all of our different insurances? All right, to workers comp, bottom line, if I can flip the page, we budgeted fiscal 24, 675,000, budget for fiscal 25, 788,000. That's an increase of 17%. And that is driven, looking again, like by the actuals process that you just talked about that we did for health insurance. So.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Any questions on workers comp? Councilor Scarpellilli?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. Just one clarifying question, and maybe it might be, you may have kind of already answered it, but I just want to fully understand it. So when you're talking about a workers' comp claim, we're paying out of the workers' comp, and then you're saying when there's a settlement, it comes off. Are those settlements, you know, does that affect our insurance side of things at all? Like, are those settlements paying insurance?
[Zac Bears]: Not necessarily health insurance, but like other insurance, like liability insurance. Like, are we paying out any of those settlements? Is there a cash payment, and is that coming? Yeah, so what happens is
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. I didn't even need your backup. I think so. Let me double check. Yes. All right. Next department is assessor. We have our assessor, chief assessor, Ted Costian here. As I noted, and I'll just read again, basically, I will quickly read the budget, and then we'd love to hear you expound on that, anything that I didn't cover. Then we'd love to hear what you've been up to this year, what you're up to over the next year. If there's a big change in your budget, once the budget's submitted at the end of the month, we may invite you back in June. So I'll give it a start. We have the assessor's department. Fiscal 24 budget, $559,637. Fiscal 25 proposed, $586,609.84. That's an increase of $26,972.84. And all of those increases are in the fixed cost growth field where we have step increases. We also have half of a position being funded through ARPA and half is gonna be coming on the general fund since ARPA ends December 31st. And there was also a decrease in the legal services line item from, I believe, 50,000 to 9,600, if I'm remembering correctly. Um, so that is what we have. I will go to our assessor if you want to expand on that, and then tell us what you've been up to as well.
[Zac Bears]: Great. One question. Is there anything not requested in this budget that you might see a need for in future budgets, either staffing, systems, programming?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And that led right into my next question, which was, you know, how do we plan to keep the field assessor position on it? It sounds like that would be a request that we'd make in the next fiscal year budget.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah. Um, and you know, as a council, um, you know, all we can do is cut, right? So I don't think you know, I don't think we've ever taken a cut vote, actually, since, um, but a cut motion, but I don't think we ever taken a cut vote since, uh, and I'm glad that the building commissioners here to I sent an email and I've just read I never responded to either of you earlier in April, just talking about assessments and new growth and flips and kind of there's just this Um. Parcels buildings and parcels being undervalued and, you know, selective valuation of parcels. And I know we've gone through it a million times. I won't ask you to go through again. The assessing process, state law, what you follow, you know, and all of the different things that go into making sure that all of the parcels in the city are at a fair value. But I did have one question from the response. we did take that vote to go to the June 30th valuation. So I know that added a little bit more for this fiscal year of new growth in the future. Is that going to shorten the lag between when a property value is valued and when the tax bill is adjusted?
[Zac Bears]: So the lag time between the when the market condition and when the value effects is gonna go from about a year to six months?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Okay, great. So we're cutting six months off of it.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And other than that, is there anything else, that, you know, your department's been doing or, you know, any, I guess my only question is, you know, some, something we, um, I'm trying to get a little bit more of a focus on, and we've been focusing on with some other departments and I'm guessing it might be a factor with your department is like our technology systems, you know, is there any, you know, do you feel like the systems that you have in place are, are effective? Is there anything that might need to be upgraded in the future? Is there anything, you know, as director Crowley talked about, um, you know, they're looking at some systems that might add some automation that might help the office, you know, operate more efficiently. Is there anything like that with the assessing office? I don't think I've ever asked you guys that before.
[Zac Bears]: Great, yeah, for those filling out their budget bingo cards, that's the first mention of AI this year.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I know. That's great to hear. Really exciting. And it sounds like you have the systems you need, but the costs go up every year.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. All right. Any questions, further questions by members of the council for our assessor?
[Zac Bears]: Seeing none, thank you. We'll talk soon. All right. All right. Next, we have building departments. We have Commissioner van der Waal here. Welcome. Good evening. Good to see you. I'm just going to read through really quickly the bottom top line budget, and I'll talk a little bit about the change. We'd love to hear anything that you weren't able to include this year, but that you envision needing for the department in the future, and then hear about your narrative. So just giving a quick start, building department, fiscal 24 budgeted $1,085,531. Fiscal 25 proposed budget $1,030,354.29. And we have a decrease, net decrease, mainly due to facilities budget, our utilities budgeting moving over to the facilities department and a decrease in overtime. And then the fixed cost growth, we have salaries with the raises, union and non-union raises, eligibility for longevity and a $2,500 increase in the cost and supplies needed for our inspectors. So with that, I'll turn it over to you, feel free to share anything you want about the budget, and we'll hear about the great work of your department.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you very much. Just anything that wasn't requested in this year's budget that you may envision us needing for your department to request in future budgets?
[Zac Bears]: Great. So the digitization of the paper records is a future project. And right now, we're not working on it.
[Zac Bears]: So maybe AI. We'll go to Councilor Leming, and then I see Councilor Scarpelli, and then I have a couple questions as well.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I actually had some questions right along the lines of that, and I think more what was said at the meeting was A, that the rental licensing ordinance proposals in the city's comprehensive plan, and we had had some, I had had some very light discussions talking about how we do already have the short-term rental registry in the books in our zoning, and that's something that we already have, as we've recognized that that's an issue for our community to know about, and it wasn't so much that the building department said, hey, we're initiating this process, it's in the comprehensive plan, and we had had some discussions about how there are ways that a rental registry could improve efficiency and functionality of some of the functions of the department, I think would be a fair characterization of what the discussions have been had. And I actually had some questions along that line. Something that we've been talking about with our planning department, and I've had some conversations with folks in your department in the past, prior commissioners, is seeing more of these LLCs and corporations kind of purchasing properties, and it's becoming a little bit more difficult to maybe get in touch with a real person or a live person if there's an issue on a property. Um, and, you know, I know 1 of the features of some of the more recent rental licensing ordinances have been saying. that either the owner needs to be within 60 miles or there needs to be a property management contact who lives within 60 miles of a property so that if there is an issue, a violation, or something else, that there's a person that the tenant or the city could get in contact with. So just wanted to kind of go along those lines. Are you seeing any sort of impact like where we have more of these kind of I don't want to necessarily call them shell companies. I'm sure they're not all shell companies, but where you have corporate owners and it's tougher to get in touch with them to enforce code violations or building issues.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, all right. Along that line, you did mention the portal being adding more of the short-term rental registry element of it. Could you go into a little bit more of what that's going to look like with the new portal that launched tonight?
[Zac Bears]: Got it, yeah. You know, we do have the short-term rental the existing zoning. We are looking at the existing registration requirements in the existing zoning, something that I had spoken with Commissioner 40 about, uh, the prior building commissioner, and we are looking at as part of our zoning changes, seeing if we can require other communities have done this, and I think we should try the same required the using their platforms for short-term rentals versus the flip side of trying to say you have to register, but then having to literally go on Airbnb and say Medford and see who's registered in Medford. I mean, there's a ton of legwork there that we're hoping we can put into the zoning as other cities have to require that they actually report that information to us rather than asking us to try to figure it out. Because I think that is, again, a huge piece of the puzzle here. just knowing where we have properties. I do know that I've spoken with inspectors, and when there are complaints or reports of issues, that that's the main way that the department is going out and addressing things.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Well, hopefully we can give you a city ordinance to point to that might help government relations when they go to legal, say that they have to give you the documentation. My only other questions are one about, you know, we always talk about it. You know, one of this council's priorities has, at least for all of my five budgets, has been additional code enforcement staff and just more folks in the department. Would that be, I think it's kind of a, you know, I'm guessing you would say that would help you do more work. you had more people to do work.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Okay. I appreciate that perspective. And the council has always felt that five folks maybe isn't enough folks, but maybe we're wrong. My last question is also the email I didn't respond to, but I appreciate you responding to my initial email around the valuations. I did just have one question. You noted that, you know, Generally, we do the permit work value accompanied by a contract. Would it be at all possible and reasonable? I'm guessing those contracts are estimates before construction because they have to get a permit to start construction.
[Zac Bears]: Would it be possible to or do you think there would even be value to asking the permit holder to return a final cost of the project compared to what the bid was?
[Zac Bears]: Is there a threshold that you kind of have in the department saying, okay, this project's big enough or they require a certain documentation, so we're going to triple check at the end?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. All right. Any further questions for the Building Commissioner, Councilor Leming? Did I see you?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further questions by members of the Council? Seeing none, we do have one public comment. I will go to Eunice on Zoom. Eunice, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. I can mention on the fee schedule that the city council did have a resolution to review the fee schedule that went to the planning and permitting committee. we're looking right now for the specific timing, but we did request all of our city departments to take a look at that and send back, you know, take a look at their fees. When was the last time they were adjusted? What was the, what are comparable fee charges in other communities and to report back to the council so that we can consider comprehensively updating fees across all of our city departments. So that is an initiative that we have undertaken. And with that, I will go to Councilor Leming and then the Building Commissioner if you have any comments on the public comment.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions or comments for the building department? Seeing none, thank you, Commissioner.
[Zac Bears]: Our next department is our Department of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, Director Francis Nwaje. And we are joined by Director Nwaje today by Zoom. And welcome, Director, thank you for being here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, totally understand. I will just go quickly over the budget here. So we have our departmental budget for fiscal 24 was $107,996. For fiscal 25, the proposed departmental budget is $117,552.53. And the change sheet shows that this is mainly the 2% change in the cost of living adjustment. It is the trainings for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. And it is moving funding from the ARPA, currently funded by ARPA, for language access to the general fund budget, which I think is a great thing. You know, one of the first things that President, former President Morell and I did in our first budget in the fiscal 2021 budget, I believe, Um, what was the fiscal 20? No, fiscal 2021 was requesting a line item for language access. So we are great, grateful to see that continue to be a priority here of the, uh, Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and of the administration. So with that, um, if there's anything that I, uh, that I you'd like to further add on the summary of the budget, we'd love to hear it. Um, and also share the work that's going on in your department. And I also know you have a presentation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Nwaje. Any questions from members of the Council? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will go to Councilor Scarpelli, then Councilor Saint.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. We'll go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And just for myself, unless there are further comments or questions by the council. I'm not seeing any. I just wanted to also add my thanks. I know Um, you know, you've heard me say it about other departments tonight. We're talking tonight about, uh, diversity, equity and inclusion department. That is a one person show. Um, although also supported, um, you know, by commissioners and volunteers, but one full time staff person doing so much for our community. Um, and you know, we've heard, uh, from other departments about, um, how you've been engaged with them, HR. I know the clerk's office. I know many other offices where your presence has been highly and deeply valued and your support has been irreplaceable. So I just want to highlight that you've already spoken to it as this budget being a starting point. But I do want to just give you the chance, as I've asked of all the other departments, is there anything that wasn't able to be requested in this budget that you really see as being something that your department needs and that we can hopefully fund in future budgets?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for the answer, and I definitely share the sentiments that you shared and hope to see in the future. The city invest and have the capacity to invest more in the D. E. I. Department and all the great work that you do. Are there any further questions by members of the council for director? No, I say seeing none and seeing no Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you to all the hands raised by the public. Thank you so much for your time tonight and for the great work that you're doing and for presenting the budget. If there are any major changes after the final budget is the mayor's final proposal is sent to us at the end of May. We may have you back. But if not best of luck in the next fiscal year.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Judy. Maybe you should change your department name to Collector Treasurer, and then you could be in the C instead of the T. Oh, is that why we do them alphabetical?
[Zac Bears]: I put HR first because they had Health Insurance and Workers' Comp, and it's, you know, what, you know, $28 million. But, you know, other than that, we went alphabetical, so.
[Zac Bears]: great.
[Zac Bears]: So I'll just as we've done, you've watched us do it a few times tonight. I'm just going to go quickly through the budget. And then you're free to share anything that you want to add to what I said. We'd love to hear your narrative of what was done over the previous year, some goals for the next year. And then as I just noted, we'd also love to hear anything that you really see as being essential for your office that we weren't able to request this year, but that you hope will be included in future budgets. So I'll just go quickly and start. Fiscal 24 budgeted amount was $719,358. The fiscal 25 proposed budget $755,193.69. And the changes there are in our fixed cost growth. There is contractual increases, 2% non-union. There is the part-time salaries. and then there is increased cost in payroll, data processing services, online processing, and there's a postage rate increase. So that is what composes the change. And with that, I'll turn it over to you.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I was at the window a few weeks ago because I misplaced my excise tax bill. easily a new one was printed and I paid my excise tax, so no demand or warrant on me this time.
[Zac Bears]: Um, yeah, just if there's anything, um, goals wise, some, some of any improvements made over the last year, any improvements to make over the next year?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any questions by members of the council I have two for you. One might be easy, one might not have to come back or send an email, and no worries about that. Just the first one, I noticed we're going from four full-time clerks to three and a half. Looks like the cost is staying about the same, though. If you could just speak a little bit more to that change.
[Zac Bears]: Got it.
[Zac Bears]: Totally understood. My only other question, and again, feel free to get back to me or maybe you might have to, this may be a bigger question than just, the treasure collector, maybe it's for finance in general. There have been some court cases lately on what's called or has been branded as equity theft. So it's when we're doing collection, if someone is a delinquent on their taxes, eventually the city will take the property and Also, they're taking the equity in the property. So it's not just the tax amount. It's also the equity and the Supreme Court ruled that that's not legal. And now the state courts are starting to rule that that's not legal. And I was just wondering if that had any impact on your office's operations or if you're looking at that.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: That would be a question for Vice President Collins or the clerk.
[Zac Bears]: the Planning and Permitting Committee is considering the fee schedule and a communication was supposed to go out to departments to request them to let us know about their fees so that we can look at updating them. I'll follow up on that. Yes, okay. The clerk and Vice President Collins will follow up.
[Zac Bears]: That's much appreciated. Yeah, that's exactly what we're looking for. We want to see similar to what Director Crowley was talking about with job descriptions from the 1980s. We have some fees from the 1980s as well.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Okay. Fantastic. Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions by members of the council, comments by members of the council, or motions on any budget? No, just, yeah, you're done. You're good. Yes. Anything else for tonight? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Council is our
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah. And you know that that really is the bottom line so far. And I'm sure it will be for everybody. You know these level service budgets keeping the same amount of services still cost more money every year because costs go up. And one of the things that we also request as part of the process and I want to thank the administration for providing it is that on these change sheets it breaks out What's the fixed cost growth? What's the new expenses? And as I noted earlier, basically everything we've had, fixed cost growth, just keeping what we have and seeing those costs go up. And I think, again, the one new expense we've seen, certainly the one new expense item that we saw tonight, was literally compliance trainings for HR, which is a basic thing that we need. When we talk about efficiency, when we talk about government, and we talk about how our tax dollars are being spent, we are maximizing that value every day. And quite frankly, We're going beyond that. We're now at the point, I think, in many departments where there are things that we think departments should do, that departments would like to do, that the community would like departments to do, that we don't do because the funds aren't there. And that's an important message, I think, for the community to be aware of because, you know, they see it and they comment on it and we get what we pay for. Any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yes. Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee of the Whole, April 30th, 2024. It's called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Four present, three absent. The meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting in the Medford City Council Committee Hall at 6 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, and by Zoom. The action discussion item for this meeting is the annual budget process for Fiscal 25 preliminary budget meeting. This is the third preliminary budget meeting of the Fiscal Year 2025 budget process. The mayor has communicated that the following departments will be present. The executive department, the Oracle Mall Commission, the Licensing Commission, and the Recreation Department. We will be hearing from those budgets tonight. We also have a budget meeting tomorrow night with several more departments, and we'll be having further meetings over the next couple of weeks. Just as a reminder to everyone about the budget schedule, we are following the new budget ordinance, which is soon to be finalized. It is actually up for third reading tonight at the City Council regular meeting at 7 o'clock. The budget schedule as follows is that by 1 March, the City Council—individual City Councilors will submit their individual budget recommendations. for consideration by the council. By Friday, March 22nd, 2024, the council will go to submit a collective budget recommendation to the mayor. That has all happened. We did receive a response from the mayor. From April 15th, 2024 to May 15th, 2024, we'll be holding preliminary budget meetings with our department heads. That's what this meeting is, and we have had two already, and we'll have several ahead of us. And then by Friday, May 31st, the mayor will submit the budget to the city council for final consideration. Um, so far at the meetings, we've been hearing from our department budgets. Um, we did also last week here from the finance director who did give a presentation on the revenue projection for the fiscal year. Um, but as I said, we are hearing from departments tonight and generally I've been asking four questions to every department. Um, just, you know, what was your budget requests and what, what does it consist of? Uh, was there anything that was not requested this year that your department might be looking for in future budgets? Then you can share anything you'd like to share about your department narrative, the work you've done over the past year, or what you're planning to do over the next year. And then I'll just remind everyone that after the formal budget is submitted, I'm guessing, given the budgets we're seeing tonight, that there won't be much change between tonight and what ends up being submitted at the end of May. But if there is some change that either we wanted to ask a question about, or if the administration wants to have you come back, we may invite you back in June. But we may not. Also, if you guys would like to be invited back, if there's something you don't have tonight, like a narrative or some project you want to talk about, we do want to give everyone the opportunity to share what their department is doing. So that's basically how the process has been working this year. It's a little bit new, but with that, I'm happy to take, unless the Madam Chief of Staff will take the Recreation Department, and we will hear from our director, Kevin Bailey. We have, as far as I can tell from here, we have the Recreation Department. Top to the bottom line budget for the general fund is 312,685, and that includes the permanent employees, the part-time employees, and basically the only change here is there's been a somewhat small increase in the pay for the employees, and there was a slight reduction in the sick leave incentive and the stipends, and that the total change in the budget is $8,850 and that is all fixed cost growth he raises for non-unit employees. So with that, I will go to you, Kevin, if you want to say what your request entails, if there's anything that you may want in the future that we're not requesting this year, and then share a little bit about what your department's been up to and what you plan to do over the next year.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, and I just want to recognize that Councilor Tseng is with us on Zoom. Councilor Callahan has joined us.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you, Kevin. I will go to Councilor Scarpelli, and then if anyone else wants to join in.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you guys so much. Just to clarify on the energy assessment for the parking lot. Yeah, it's for overhead
[Zac Bears]: There's a motion to request an energy assessment for the Hormel parking lot for solar to power the the hockey rink. Second. There's also a motion, or the same motion, a request to consider a split position for administrative support for the Recreation Department, potentially split with another department. Thank you. By Councilor Scarpelliglia, seconded by Councilor Leming, and we'll take the motions at the end of the meeting. Any further questions for our Recreation Department? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further questions or discussion? Kevin, will you do Hormel tonight?
[Zac Bears]: I'll just very quickly say that the Hormel budget for the Hormel Commission, if I can get to it, is budgeted for no change, $3,900 for stipend for the boards and commissions, and then a $1,500 stipend, I believe that's for the staff support for the Hormel Commission. And if there's anything else you want to talk about Hormel Stadium or the commission?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: It's kind of backwards, isn't it? Thank you. If I could follow up on Councilor Scarpelli's question about the sound system at Hormel. I'm glad to hear about the conduit, and I think our videographer, Shane, may have had something to do with some of the repairs, so thanks, Shane. But I think there's also, you know, The band had their great award-winning show last year, and I think the cheer team had a song program as well, and the sound quality itself was just really underwhelming, I think is a fair comment. So if there is any sort of ability to maybe try to improve on that front, I mean, I think it's fine for like doing vocal announcements and kind of doing the play-by-play, but when you try to pump music through that thing, it's pretty rough. And so I know that that was, you know, something that I think would have been nice to, if it was a little bit of a higher quality, I think it would have been nice for everybody, at least I was at the Thanksgiving game, and you know, when we win a Thanksgiving game, which is starting to happen more, it's nice to have that for everyone who's also showing off their big shows at halftime and stuff like that. So I just wanted to throw that comment in. But I'm glad to hear that at least we're not chewing through everything at this point with our squirrels.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Great. Any further questions about the Hormel Commission, Hormel Stadium? Seeing none, thank you, Kevin. Thank you, Danny. Thank you. Glad to have you here. And if there's anything you want to come back in June and talk about, we'll be more than happy to have you.
[Zac Bears]: We'll see you in a few months. Great.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. The last two budgets we have for tonight are the Executive Department and the Licensing Commission. And I believe we have the Chief of Staff, Nina Nazarian, present those budgets. I'm guessing you want to take executive first. So I think I have here, I'll just read it off. You have a total budget of $667,696.68. That's up from $640,390. And these costs are salaries, non-union increases, and the ending of ARPA. 10% of the communications director's salary is in ARPA. And it also looks like the special project administrator position is going down in terms of hours, and some of the positions in the executive department are funded by outside sources. So it looks like all of the growth and costs for the department is fixed cost growth for staff for their pay. And with that, I'll turn it over to you to share whatever you'd like to share, and also to let us know if there's anything. I mean, obviously, it's the executive department, you would probably know best about your own department of, you know, if you're going to request from the mayor for the mayor to put something in the budget. But if there's anything in the future that you're considering for your department that wasn't included this year, we'd love to hear about it.
[Zac Bears]: So if you want to treat this as the nuts and bolts and leave the big show for the big budget presentation, I certainly wouldn't mind because we are at 653. But if you'd like to share highlights, we've invited every department to share that as well. So you're welcome to do so.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Go right ahead. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing none, would you like to present the License Commission budget? I see it here as budgeted fiscal 24, 5,800, 5,400 for stipends and 400 for office supplies and budgeted for fiscal 25, the same amount, no change.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Sure. Great. Any further questions for the chief of staff on the license commission? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, can you redirect the motions for the meeting? Great, is there a motion to refer that motion to the administration and to adjourn?
[Zac Bears]: I'll motion to refer that to the administration for a response and to adjourn by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Fleming. Too late.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean, affirmative. None of the negative. The questions are referred to the administration and the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: City Council, April 30, 2024. It's called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records 24-085 offered by myself. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we congratulate the Center for Citizenship and Social Responsibility, CCSR students at the Brooks Elementary School for their fundraiser to purchase safety devices for our local United States Postal Service mail carriers. Be it further resolved that we invite these students to the May 14th City Council meeting to receive a citation for their fantastic work. And I also noted that we have a resolution from Councilor Scarpelli, 24-095. Is there a motion to join the two resolutions?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to join the two papers by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Kiley. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I mean, affirmative. None of the negative motion passes. 24-095 be resolved. The city council recognized the amazing work of Samantha McLaughlin and Adam Costello, members of the CCSR and fifth grade students from the Brooks Elementary School on providing safety whistles for postal workers. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean, I think you have said most of it, but you know, A, our postal workers are doing incredibly important work that I know lately under incredibly difficult circumstances. So I'm grateful that young people in the city are taking up the mantle of trying to provide some community service. And our CCSR across every school in the district does amazing work. So I want to thank all the students and the educators who make it happen. I do want to go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comment on the resolution? On the motions of myself and Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callaghan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll and we will invite these folks to our next regular meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. 24086 by myself and Councilor Scarpelli, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we congratulate former Councilor Rick Caraviello on the honour of being named 2024 Citizen of the Year by the Medford Chamber of Commerce, and we thank Rick for his decades of service to the city of Medford and his residence. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further comments from members of the Council on this paper? Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Tsengeed.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion? I'll just say that I echo my fellow Councilors' comments. Serving with Rick for my first two terms on the Council, some of them with Rick in leadership, through the pandemic, it was a powerful time, an interesting time, and we sometimes agreed, sometimes disagreed, but always got along before and after meetings, agreed to disagree. definitely work together behind the scenes on several projects, just trying to, you know, go at things from our perspectives and try to advance different proposals, work with different property owners and people who wanted to bring development to our community and try to I encourage that in different ways and I know that that was a big passion of Rick's and he is someone who I hope will continue to do that advocacy as a private citizen. I also just have spoken to so many people involved with our new Metro Public Library. who are very grateful to former Councilor Caraviello for his work to bring that library to our community, work with the Library Foundation, along with many others. And he really was a leader of that, and we have now a beautiful public library, and at a very reasonable cost to the community. So it was a great accomplishment, and I know that he's very proud of it, and we're all very grateful to him for his work. Any further comment on the resolution? Seeing none, on the motion by myself and Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean affirmative, non-negative, the motion passes. We're going to have a packed list of invitations for our next meeting because our next resolution is 24098 be it resolved by Councilor Tseng, be it resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate the Medford High School Orchestra on winning a gold medal and the Medford Middle School String Ensemble on winning a silver medal at the prestigious Massachusetts Instrumental and Chorus Conductors Association Concert Festival. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng, as amended by Councilor Tseng, any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Seeing no further discussion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I move the affirmative. None of the negative motion passes. Records. The records of the meeting of April 16, 2024 pass to Councilor Cowen. Councilor Kelly, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: All right. On the motion of Councilor Highland to accept the records, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Having the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes, the records are accepted. Is there a motion to join the reports of committees? So moved. On the motion of Vice-President Collins to join the reports of committees, seconded by? Second. Councilor Lemmie, would you please call the roll?
[Zac Bears]: I'll give a short summary of the first two and then the committee chairs can give summaries of the rest. the whole budget April 23rd 2024. This is our second preliminary budget meeting. We did receive a presentation from director Dickinson that went into finance director Dickinson that went into the expected revenue for the fiscal 25 budget. Um and also we heard from the legislative department, the finance department, the clerk's department, all of which were either to just factor in the increase in the non-union staff contracts. So again, the only increase in those departments were fixed cost growth. We just had another preliminary budget meeting tonight, and we have one tomorrow, and then we will have some more in the weeks to come. But we are getting ahead of the budget, and I don't think we will be rushing through it in a couple weeks in June, which is an improvement. 24.015 and 24.073, Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee. Councilor LEMMING.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. 24033 and 24083, Vice President Collins, Planning and Permitting Committee, April 24th, 2024.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. 24084, Public Works and Facilities Committee, Councilor Calderon.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I think just to add to that there was a response to your question. What would it cost him and Tim McGibbon set up 400,000 to 700,000 depending on the scale of the staffing. And that would move us from having a crew out two to three times a month to two to three times a week.
[Zac Bears]: Five years, 6 million? The middle path that Councilor Callahan was mentioning was 3.5 million a year. And that's basically, the line was going down ever so slightly on the condition of the roads for 6 million a year we had an increase in conditions and he said that we were between those two numbers right now and he's now working for the first time in the city to estimate When utilities repair the roads, what's the dollar value of that relative? And then you could add up Chapter 90 bond money. That's good. That's good to see. So we're somewhere in between those two. If I can, though. Yes, Councilor Scarpelli. If I can, I didn't realize.
[Zac Bears]: on the motion to sever the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee. Is there a second? Okay, on the motion to sever the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor McLaren. No. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. On the motion to approve Papers 24045 on April 17th, 2024, the Committee of the Whole report April 23rd, 2024, the Planning and Permitting Committee April 24th, 2024, and the Public Works and Facilities Committee April 24th, 2024, by Council Vice-President Collins, seconded by— Councilor Holland. Seconded. Vice-President Collins. To approve, correct? To approve the four, yeah. We are approving the committee reports for the Committee of the Whole budget, April 17th and April 23rd, the Planning and Permitting Committee, April 24th, and the Public Works Committee, April 24th. Roll call, please.
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Galland. Councilor John Gallo. Councilor John Gallo. Councilor John Gallo. Councilor John Gallo. Councilor John Gallo.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 16 affirmative one, the negative motion passes. Is that any better? Shane, can we do a sound check here? We just put the contract out to redo the sound systems. How about now? Is this any improvement? We have a problem. It won't stick to it. Is there any improvement now? I'm loud and clear? We don't have the ability to adjust individual microphones, so that is one of the issues. I think we don't have the ability to adjust individual microphones. They don't want to do a test, test, test.
[Zac Bears]: Great. The caption is picking it up. 24-067, Snappy Patties, 454 High Street, special permit for hours, legal notice, Medford City Clerk's Office, notice of a public hearing, Medford City Council. A public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council and the Howard F. Alton Memorial Chambers, City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts on April 30, 2024 at 7 p.m., a Zoom link to be posted no later than Friday, April 26, 2024, on a petition from West Medford LLC, DBA, Snappy Patties, 454 High Street, Metro Massachusetts 02155 for a special permit to amend its hours of operations in accordance with the Medford zoning ordinance chapter 94 7.2.1 to operate extended hours of this business 454 High Street Metro Massachusetts 02155 said site being located in a commercial and zoning district as follows extended hours of operation requested Thursday, Friday and Saturday at 11 PM to 1 AM. Petition and plan may be seen in the office of the City Clerk, Medford City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts. Call 781-393-2425 for any accommodations and aids. City of Medford is an EEO-AA-504 employer. By order of the Medford City Council, Adam Hurtubise, City Clerk. I will go to Councilor Scarpelli, our Chair on Licensing, and then we can hear from a petitioner if the petitioner is present. Great. And we'll go from there.
[Zac Bears]: We have a petitioner present for Snappy Pats?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Well, you can share your petition and Councilor Scarpelli may have some questions for you.
[Zac Bears]: No, can we have your name and address for the record, please? Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions for the petitioner for the petition to extend hours of operation Thursday, Friday, Saturday, 11 p.m. to 1 a.m.? ? see none. I do have one question. Are you planning to be every Thursday, Friday, Saturday open till one a.m. Or would it be more as needed?
[Zac Bears]: Earlier than a council meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Hey, you know, we'll see what we can do. These are the businesses we want to keep it met. Oh, of course. Thank you. We'll see what we can do. Maybe we can get some of that to meet.
[Zac Bears]: Well, we need to open the public hearing, so thank you. And if you just stay up here for one second, I'm going to open the public hearing in one moment, open the public hearing to anyone who is in favor, in opposition, or who would otherwise like to comment on the special permit. Public hearing is now open. Would you like to comment on the petition in favor, opposed, or otherwise? I'm guessing you're in favor.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in this public hearing in favor or in opposition to this special permit, or otherwise would like to speak on the proposed special permit? Seeing no one in the Chamber and seeing no hand raised on Zoom, I declare the public hearing closed. Is there a motion?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve with a 30- and 60-day review by the Building Department, seconded by Councilor Callaghan. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Legal notice, Medford City Clerk's Office, notice of a public hearing, Medford City Council. A public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council in the Howard F. Baldwin Memorial Chamber, City Hall, 185 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, on April 30th, 2024 at 7 p.m., assumed to be posted no later than Friday, April 26th, 2024, on a petition from West Medford LLC, DBA, Snappy Patties, 454 High Street, Medford, MA 02155, for a special permit to amend its hours of operation in accordance Oh, sorry, I'm reading the wrong paper. My apologies. Public hearing will be held. I'm just going to go from the beginning. Legal notice, Medford City Clerk's Office notice of public hearing. Medford City Council, public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council and Howard F. Alden Memorial Auditorium, City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts. On April 30, 2024, at 7pm, a Zoom link to be posted no later than Friday, April 26, 2024, on a petition from Sias Properties, LLC, DBA, Pinky's Famous Pizza, 165 Main Street, Medford, MA 02155, for a special permit to amend its hours of operations in accordance with the Medford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter Size 94. 7.2.1 to operate extended hours of its business at 165 Main Street, Medford MA 02155 said site being located in apartment one district as follows extended hours of operation requested Monday to Thursday 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. Friday Saturday Sunday 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. petition and plan may be seen in the office of the City Clerk Medford City Hall Medford MA call 781-393-2425 for any aids and accommodations the City of Medford is an EEO-AA-504 employer by order of the City Council Adam L. Hurtubise City Clerk So we are opening a discussion with the chair of the Subcommittee on Licensing, Permitting and Signs, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have a petitioner from Pinky's Pizza? You can come to the podium and we will hear from you.
[Zac Bears]: So if you could give us your name and address and tell us, just give us a summary of your proposal.
[Zac Bears]: you. Thank you. Thank you. If I can't do that now, we can go to questions from members of Council. I'll go to Councilor start by the council.
[Zac Bears]: It makes sense, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, two o'clock is definitely... I don't think there are many licenses in the city, maybe one or two. 1 o'clock is a little more common, midnight more common than that. So we do have to align with that as well as we discussed with the Oasis permit. I will go to Councilor Leming for a question for the petitioner.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing none, I'm going to open the public hearing for anyone in favor, in opposition, or who would otherwise like to make a comment. Public hearing is open. Are you in favor of the petition?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Is there anyone who would like to comment at this time? Great. So if you could, we'll have him come. And if there's anyone on Zoom who would like to comment, please raise your hand on Zoom. Mr. D'Antonio, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. Thank you. And it sounds like there is a motion to continue the public hearing to our next regular meeting, May 14th, please, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to continue this public hearing to our next meeting on May 14th, and we'll be able to coordinate with them. And I think Councilor Scarpelli is coming up to do it right now, to talk with the building department and try to get to something that could work for everyone. And we'll have further conversations, and thank you for your willingness to work with us on that as well. All right, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to continue the public hearing to the May 14th regular meeting, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, negative, motion passes. Hearing is continued to the date certain of May 14th. 24-074 offered by Council Vice President Collins be resolved with the Medford City Council review the annual surveillance report. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to table by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan, is this a table to a date certain of May 14th? Yes. Mr. Clerk, please follow.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Stroud is temporarily absent. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion is tabled to our next regular meeting. 24-093, offered by Vice-President Collins and President Bears. be it resolved that the Medford City Council express its support of S. 1836 and H. 2963, an act relative to the payment of the organizations exempt from property tax, be it further resolved that the City Clerk forward a copy of this resolution to the Medford Legislative Delegation as well as to the Chairs of the Joint Revenue Committee, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins, and thank you for allowing me to co-sponsor this resolution. I've been working on pilot since 2017. We had many meetings with Mayor Burke in 2019. The joint Our Revolution Medford, Our Revolution Somerville pilot working group released an estimate that if Tufts paid property taxes on its currently exempt properties, it would pay $8 million a year to the city, which is a significant amount. One of the reasons that I've been working on this, and I worked with Representative Eiderhoven who filed this petition, in 2022 was on a panel, we did some interviews to try to get the word out there about this. This would only go up to 25% and it would only be 25% of what they would otherwise pay if they were not exempt. And it would also exempt any organization whose assets were less than $15 million. So it's not trying to go towards small nonprofit organizations. It's really the large hospitals and educational institutions who do not pay their fair share right now. So that would be $2 million more a year, and that was now five years ago. As everyone knows, property values have gone up by a couple billion dollars since then, so I'm sure it's a little bit more than that. In any case, the reason that it does not advance in the Statehouse is that Tufts and Harvard and MIT and many others pay hundreds of thousands of dollars each every year to fund an organization called the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Massachusetts, and they lobby the Statehouse to kill this bill every session. So that is something we can all call, all of our representatives are supportive of it. I believe Representative Barbara Garbally I believe Representative Donato, I'd have to double check, and Senator Jalen, but this is an important thing, and as we all know, the state controls so much of what cities and towns are allowed to do, so that's why it's important that we advocate to the state to allow us to do more here. There is also something that this council has submitted regarding Tufts, which is a lesser bar, it's something called the Institutional Master Plan Home Rule Petition, currently under zoning, We don't have nearly as much zoning authority over Tufts as we do over other private property exempt institutions, have exemptions through something called the Dover Amendment. We have asked that the State House give us the authority to require that Tufts tell us what they plan to do in terms of expansion and growth, a five-year master plan. That also has not advanced for we've put it up every every session that I've been a city councilor that has also been quashed and we do that alongside Somerville as well who shares that concern so you know it really is the city working hard on this you know Tufts decided I think in 2021 that they were going to unilaterally implement. They said, we'll give you a pilot of $450,000, and we're going to give $450,000 to Medford, $450,000 to Somerville, and $450,000 to Boston, and we don't really want to negotiate with you any more than that. So it is not sufficient in my view, and that's why I'm supportive of state legislation to give our city more authority to hold Tufts to pay its fair share to our community for the services that it uses that are paid for by the city of Medford. Any further discussion? Councilor Tseng, and then Councilor Callaghan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion on the topic? Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: So my understanding of it is that it is about what properties qualify for exempt use under state law. The dormitories actually qualify for exempt use right now because they are for educational purposes, the housing of students for educational purposes. That's the definition that applies currently. My understanding is that at least the analysis and the legislation, if it were to move forward against the pay of the lobbyists, is for all of the exempt purposes, and essentially the analysis that was done five years ago was asking the city assessor, what is the assessed value of all the land that is currently exempt from the property tax in the city? And then you just apply the property tax rate to that amount to get the figure.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to add on that point. Part of the bill would also right now, tough says that they provide community benefits to the city, but of course, they don't quantify those benefits. This bill would also allow us to require them to tell us if you if you want to provide the money in cash, you know, if we would like to provide the money in cash for your brother, but we're happy to take community benefits. You just have to tell us what they're worth. So that it meets the amount.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, because this- Please direct your comments to the chair.
[Zac Bears]: No, you can talk to me.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes. Harvard does have an exemption. Cambridge has an exemption for Harvard from some of the laws, which does help them access that. So that's one piece of it. And I will also note that the state is losing population and the fastest loss of population is between 20 and 40.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, actually I'm gonna go to Zoom, Maureen on Zoom. Maureen, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Just to answer some of the questions, I can give you an answer to some of them. The only properties that were owned by nonprofits with assets over $15 million were Tufts University's many properties, as well as the former, what was Harvard Vanguard. That was purchased by Atrius Health. which is a for-profit corporation, and that money, that building is now taxed, the Atrius Health building here, but that was another organization that had over the threshold and was paying a pilot. And additionally, the Rivers Edge development was part of the Brownfields Mississippi Valley Development Corporation, and that was paying a pilot and is now moving to the tax rolls. So those are the major nonprofits that were paying pilots.
[Zac Bears]: I was very supportive of the endowment tax that you're talking about. And in terms of the affordable housing piece, the planning department does have the city's subsidized affordable housing inventory, the SHI, which is a list of all of the affordable housing units in the city. And that's what we use to keep track of affordable units that are deed restricted, as well as making sure that we are meeting the safe harbor requirements for 40 B. So that is maintained by the planning.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're going to go to Martha on Zoom. Martha, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Isaac Bruce Beers II, if you want to go all the way.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead, Mr. Castagnetti.
[Zac Bears]: Walnut Hill Properties is the for-profit arm of Tufts University. They purchase properties, but they are taxed on those properties.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. Anything further?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. go to Maureen D. on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to Roberta Cameron. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment on the resolution?
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Um, on the motion. Any further discussion by members of the council members of public on the motion of Vice President Collins to approve seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I mean from another negative motion passes. Council vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Take paper two four zero nine two by vice president Collins. Seconded by Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm affirming that the motion passes. To the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council of Medford City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, regarding the Community Preservation Committee appropriation request, on behalf of the Community Preservation Committee, I respectfully request and recommend your Honorable body approve the following recommendation of the Community Preservation Committee. requesting the appropriation of $287,500 from the CPA General Reserve to the Medford Historical Commission for the Thomas Brook Park Phase II restoration. The project will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund. The CPC recommendation letter is attached and incorporated. community preservation manager, Teresa Dupont, and Metro Historical Commission co-chair, Ryan Hayward, will be in attendance to address any questions. Thank you for considerations. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn mayor. From the Community Preservation Committee, dear Mr. President, the CPC has submitted one appropriation request for the below project. The intention of this communication is to provide a brief project summary for the benefit of council members. Thomas Brook Park phase two, the CPC has previously recommended and the city council approved funding for the restoration of Thomas Brook Park, a project managed by the Metro Historical Commission. We are pleased that the Historical Commission has utilized the previous funding strategically and expeditiously and is now shifting into their final restoration phase. Thomas Brooke Park is located adjacent to the Medford Brooks Estate and contains the presumed location of the original Brooks House. The Historical Commission is rehabilitating the landscaping to create a functional recreational space while celebrating and preserving Medford's history. A portion of this funding will be spent cleaning up the tree and landscaping debris left over from previous work. The CBC supports this project and voted unanimously to recommend funding with one member abstaining, as they are a member of the Historical Commission. I will go to our Community Preservation Coordinator and the chair of the, vice chair of the Historical Commission, Teresa Dupont and Ryan Hayward. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Ryan. We also have the chair of the community preservation committee, Roberta Cameron. Roberta, if you'd like to share anything additional.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any questions by members of the council? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Any further discussion? Any discussion by members of the public in the chamber or on Zoom? Seeing none, on the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative. None negative. Motion passes. Is there a motion to revert to the regular order of business? There's a motion to revert to the regular order of business, seconded by my Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: 24-094 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. It be resolved that the City Council discuss subcommittee processes. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: The council could of course authorize a committee to take action if it wanted to do so, but generally final disposition should occur on the council floor.
[Zac Bears]: It's going to the same list that all city communications go through.
[Zac Bears]: By your logic, the mayor's communications would also be campaigning.
[Zac Bears]: And that's- I signed the same letter in 2020.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli, if you read the letter, there's a section that says signed on behalf of the board, and then there's a section that says signed on behalf of the individual. Our names were included in the section that said signed on behalf of the individual.
[Zac Bears]: Is that a motion to amend the paper?
[Zac Bears]: So there's a motion on the floor by Councilor Scarpelli to amend the paper to request a legal opinion on whether city communications are campaign communications and whether the use of city title, the use of titles by city officials, could you, what the use of the titles?
[Zac Bears]: Right. Right. Okay. So thank you. I just want to do want to clarify that that letter did not do that.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I just wanted to see, because the letter that I signed, which I also signed four years ago, and I'm going to go to Councilor, Vice President Collins, then Councilor Collins, and then Councilor Lazzaro. I signed one four years ago, I testified actually in public in favor of the transfer fee February 2020 at the State House, signed the same letter, is requesting the authority to give cities and towns the power to make the decision for themselves. So that's what the letter said, and I'm gonna go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, you're not done.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I would note that many Councilors have signed many letters over many years advocating for the things that they care about and always have something to say on an issue.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, you really violations are sir. Violations are the violations of telling the truth. So is that what the truth is? Yes, I'm my obligation as the chair is to state facts.
[Zac Bears]: And I'm incredibly disappointed. I'm disappointed that there are people who would miss our neighbors so that they feel like they need to move. I think that's shame. I'm disappointed. Vice President Collins. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, any comments on the transfer fee are out of order. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan, Councilor Lazzaro, Vice President, sorry, Councilor Leming. Councilor Callahan first. I believe I did it.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I spoke with Councilor Scarpelli about that, and I believe we are amending this to have some substance, but in the future, if there are motions to discuss in a vague way, I probably will rule them out of order.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor, if you could just share your comments with the chair.
[Zac Bears]: I'd like to go to Councilor Callahan, if I may. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, every item discussed by the City Council is discussed in multiple public meetings with the participation of the public.
[Zac Bears]: I can read the full text of that.
[Zac Bears]: So when we saw that, if I could read the full text.
[Zac Bears]: No, hold on a minute.
[Zac Bears]: The February 14th Planning and Permitting Committee meeting, 22-310, housing home rule petitions offered by Vice President Bears and Councilor Collins, whereas the city of Medford and greater Boston region are in the midst of a deep housing crisis that is displacing residents and families. and whereas the City of Medford saw a 15% year-over-year increase in average rents from March 2021 to March 2022, and a 5% increase in average rents from February 22 to March 2022, according to WGBH News, and whereas many Medford residents are facing significant rent increase or other methods of displacement from rental units, now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the Housing Subcommittee meet to discuss the potential drafting of home rule petitions on the following policies to protect Medford residents facing housing instability, and a lack of affordable housing options, bullet point rent stabilization, tenant right to purchase, tenant right to counsel, just cause eviction protections, regulation of upfront lease fees, anti-price housing protections, and exemptions for small owner-occupant landlords. Be it further resolved that the housing subcommittee discuss a potential council resolution supporting H1378 and S886, an act enabling local options for tenant protections currently under consideration by the Massachusetts legislature. So it was a pretty specific notice.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, to be honest, it's just like. We're spending a bunch of time talking about a couple of semantic issues. There was a resolution 24-015. Semantics for you. Well, it's semantics in general. But it's 24-015 did not explicitly say that the committee could issue the newsletter itself and therefore the committee should have referred something back to the council. the council could absolutely vote to say this committee shall do X. We keep papers in committee all the time and meet on them multiple times. We just have done it three times in the past two weeks on the city budget. So you are correct. And we have sent out motions from that committee to the administration without them coming before this council. Additionally, we've approved committee reports coming from the committee. So arguably it was approved tonight. So there's a lot of ways that it happens. I think that's why we're talking about Semantics, I think at this point it would probably be helpful if someone were to file a resolution that formally said the committee can do this. But yeah, it's a real good use of our time.
[Zac Bears]: I deserve also the respect that every other council has ever gotten when they sign a letter. You keep talking from the chair. Well, just, you know. Any further discussion on the matter?
[Zac Bears]: Great, is there a motion to call to question, or do we want to hear from the, do we want to go to public participation? Any further comments from councilors? Hearing no other motions, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: How is it related to the subcommittee processes, if I may ask?
[Zac Bears]: I think it, um, uh, yeah, I think it would be relevant to the, uh, home rule petitions paper. Um, okay, if that is fine, but I'll Councilor. Will you prefer me to wait? I'm happy to wait. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, I appreciate that. Name and address for the record, please. Good evening.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, you can deliver the petition to Larry. He will keep it on file. And what happened, there's two things here. So there was a letter written to the state house about a piece of legislation proposed by the governor, the Affordable Homes Act. and specifically a portion of that legislation, which would authorize cities and towns to discuss the implementation of a fee, a real estate transfer fee. As individual city councilors and as the council president and vice president, we signed on to the letter supporting that legislation. That is separate from the in-council proposal for a discussion of a home rule petition and subcommittee. So those are two different things.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. I don't think it was taken that way. Point of information. I'm going to go. Yeah. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Right, yes, and that's what we're doing in the committee. I also, as a councillor, signed a letter about something I think the state should let all cities and towns do. This is why people were allowed because you used your titles. That's all. Okay. Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, I'm going to go to Maureen D. on Zoom. Maureen, name and address for the record, please. Maureen, I'm going to ask you to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: And we were representing, as you noted, municipal officers and Councilor Collins and I are two municipal officers.
[Zac Bears]: you look at the signatures on the letter, there's a section for people who are signing on behalf of the body and officers who are signing as individuals, and Vice President Collins and I were signed under the section representing individuals.
[Zac Bears]: The issues we are certainly working on all of those issues we've had, you know, dozens of meetings in the past few months, touching on every subject that you said, but again, you know, we were actually literally as elected officials signing a public letter so that the public would know. our position on the local option transfer fee and the Affordable Homes Act. So as individual Councilors, we were sending a letter to inform the public about our opinion on an issue. The individual Councilors signing on to public statements does not have to go through any sort of council process. So that's how that works. Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to second the motion.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to call the question seconded by Councilor Lemme.
[Zac Bears]: It's a public letter.
[Zac Bears]: Green? I can't I don't know. I don't. I don't know what news people read. I don't know what letters people read. I do not control that. On the motion of Council Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming, to call the question. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: It's a motion to call the question. It's a motion to call the previous question. It's undebatable. It's a motion to call the previous question. It's undebatable. It's a police order.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 for everyone. The negative motion passes on the rule for the previous question that's initiates a 15 minute period where Councilors may further debate the calling of the question. Each Councilor can speak for up to, I believe, two minutes. Other councillors would like to speak further on the matter?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do councillors have any further on this paper? The motion is the motion by Councilor Scarpelli to discuss the City Council subcommittee processes. And also, there were two amendments to the motion. Could you read back the amendments to the motion, Mr. Clerk?
[Zac Bears]: Can we further amend that to give the impression to a reasonable person?
[Zac Bears]: I was not at that point, no.
[Zac Bears]: My apologies for that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So the rule 23 on the previous question, members must gain the floor part of making such a motion, which Vice President Collins did. A motion must receive a second. It received one by Councilor Leming. All further amendment or debate of the main question shall be suspended until the previous question is decided. On the previous question, non-exceeding 15 minutes shall be allowed for debate, which shall be confined to giving reasons why the main question should not be put to an immediate vote. And no member shall speak for more than two minutes after such debate. A majority vote shall be sufficient to end debate on the main question and require an immediate vote. Is there any further debate on why the previous question should not be put on paper 24-094? Councilor Callahan. It's not debate on the merits of the main question. It's debates on why we should continue debate. Thank you. Any further discussion on why we should continue debate? Seeing none, on the motion on the main question on the paper proposed by Councilor Scarpelli as amended by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Is there a second on the main paper? Seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: No, three in the affirmative, four in the negative, the motion fails. 24-096, resolution offered by Councilor Scarpelli, resolution that the City Council finalize dates for a walking tour of all firehouses in the city. Be it resolved that the City Council finalize dates for a walking tour to all firehouses in the city.
[Zac Bears]: I believe we have reached. Mr. Chairman. Excuse me, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I wanted to speak on that. The home rule petition is the next paper. I believe we have a date for this. Thank you. Any further discussion? Yes. Everybody tried, I believe at least four of us will be able to attend the 18th at 1030. Any further discussion? Do you want to vote on it or do you want to withdraw it? Yep. On the motion, on the withdrawal, the motion is withdrawn, 24-096. 24-097, be it resolved, the City Council discuss processes dealing with possible home rule petitions. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: I believe, actually, that if the mayor chooses not to submit it, that the council cannot overrule her.
[Zac Bears]: I believe so, yes.
[Zac Bears]: So we sent 6-1 last year, the home rule petitions on the budget and the charter ballot questions. Those were sent to her 6-1. She did not return them and she did not submit them. There is no legal requirement under state law, according to the meetings we had with council about that for her to return it to us. And we cannot override her decision.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thank you. And I think, yeah, just to go into it just a little more. Any Councilor could put a resolution on the agenda to request that this council as a collective body submit a home rule petition to the legislature requesting that the city have the authority to do something that it currently does not have the authority to do. For example, we've submitted a home rule petition to ask Tufts to do the institutional master plan. A charter change would be a home rule petition. The transfer fee was a home rule petition. So that's this body acting collectively to request that state allowed the body to take an action, authorized the city to take action. Many home rule petitions have been granted, and there are many special acts that apply to the city of Medford. But as Councilor Scarpelli noted, a councillor would propose that it would be on a regular meeting agenda. Um, that could be referred to a committee as the charter ballot questions were last year. Um, those were then, uh, discussed in committee, referred back to the regular council. The council voted to send them by a 6 to 1 vote. The mayor decided not to send them to the statehouse, and therefore they died at that point. Um, if the mayor had sent them to the statehouse, then the state house would consider the petitions. Technically, they would be entered in by our representatives and senator into the general court as a piece of legislation. Then that piece of legislation would have to pass through the state house and the state senate and be signed by the governor, at which point the law, there would be a law of the state of Massachusetts, and that law would say that the city of Medford is authorized to do X. So that is the process. Any discussion by members of the council on the process for a home rule petition? Seeing none, discussion by members of the public. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Penta.
[Zac Bears]: We go to Sharon on zoom name and address record, please. Sharon DSL on zoom name and address. Sharon on zoom.
[Zac Bears]: In address for record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you. I'm happy to respond. I think a few things are being conflated. So what we were talking about on March 12th was a home rule petition for this city council to craft a request to the state to allow Just Medford to implement a real estate transfer fee. You were quoting me and saying, those things don't pass. I completely agree with that. It was it was Anna. I thought it was me. So sorry. I basically think the same thing. If we were to have the committee meeting on the Home Rule petition, we were to report it out of committee, the mayor were to send it to the legislature, but probably go in the same place that the other 18 Home Rule petitions have gone, which is the trash bin. Separately, there's three things at play here. There's the home rule petition by the city council and the mayor to request permission for the city to do something. There's the legislation that is at the state house, which would authorize all cities and towns to implement something. And then there's what ordinance we would actually pass in the city. I support local control on this issue. I think that the state should give cities and towns, all of them the permission, including what was in that letter, to implement whatever transfer fee those cities and towns want to implement. I don't think that my position on what we should implement in Medford should constrain what the people of Nantucket want to implement in Nantucket. So I support a broad local option allowing cities and towns to do something that they want to do. And I don't think that we should impose our conditions and our politics on other communities. And I think that all communities should have the local control on this issue. What you quoted at the beginning is what all of us said, we would be comfortable passing in Medford. which is high-end transactions targeted at the high-end real estate. So there's three pieces. I support a broad local option for all cities and towns to implement a transfer fee. That's different because I believe cities and towns need a lot more authority because the state constrains our authority to do basically anything, so we aren't able to address the problems that people have. That's entirely different from what ordinance on a transfer fee I think Medford should pass if we were given that authority. So those are the three pieces, and I hope that clarifies my position on the issue.
[Zac Bears]: I don't want someone... I just think it shouldn't apply in Mexico. I just think that the full amount should not be here in Medford. I don't think that I should impose my opinion on the people of another city. So that's my position. I support local control for communities, and I also have specific opinions about what I believe Medford should implement.
[Zac Bears]: And I have two convictions. One is local control, and one is what the ordinance should look like in the city. That's fine. Thank you. Vice President Collins, since you also signed the letter.
[Zac Bears]: And I would note that we voted seven to zero on the pilot legislation. which is getting wiped out every session. Because we think it's a good idea, even though we don't have confidence that the State House will actually approve the legislation. Councilor Callahan. Sorry, Councilor Lemmie, Councilor- yeah, my bad. We usually have a button and it would show me a list. So, we're getting that back.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. Any further comment by members of the council? We have Martha Andres on Zoom. Martha, name and address for the record, please. Martha, for some reason we can't hear you. You're unmuted, but we can't hear you. Could someone check with Shane? We still can't hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Yep, we can hear you. Martha, it looks like there might be an issue with your microphone. You may need to join audio or reset your microphone. In the meantime, I will go to the podium. Eileen Lerner, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Let's go back to Martha. Let's try this again. Martha, name and address for the record, please. We still can't hear you, Martha. There is a phone call in on the agenda if you want to try to call in by phone and we could recognize you if you go to the agenda on the city website or on our agenda and meeting portal, but we can't hear you right now.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Martha, we'll try to come back to you again. I'm going to go to Bill on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Martha, you want to try again? You're still unmuted. Go back to the podium, Gaston, and if you don't mind, we're on the second round. If we could just keep it a little shorter, but yeah, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Don't you agree that they're, depending on the structure of the transfer fee and what the threshold was and what the number of units would have applied to, therefore restricting the parcels and structures that would be considered, there could be substitution effects that would change the who would be the buyer, and that that may be a preferential outcome for the city?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I get it. You just used the word average buyer. And if we're talking about corporate transactions.
[Zac Bears]: If we're talking about large buyers, those would not be the average buyer.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, you're right. Yes, Councilor Kelly and then Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I do not have the authority under the Supreme Judicial Court to police the content at the podium, and I also have a simultaneous duty as the chair to state facts. So sometimes that will be in dispute with the principle you just said, but I generally agree with the principle that you just stated. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the council? Approve what?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to receive and place on file by Councilor Collins, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. Did you amend it to report it out or it's just we discussed it? We discussed it. Got it, okay. Sorry, I just wanted to make sure we didn't have anything that needed to go out.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative. The motion is received and placed on file. President Bears? Yes, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: on the motion of Vice President Collins to join papers 24086, 24087, 24088, 24089, 24090, and 24091 and approve. And I'll just read those. These are requests for Hormel Stadium food trucks, requests for a food truck permit for Penny Packers, May 4th at Hormel Stadium. They are fantastic. I'm sure the rest of them are, but I know that one. Food truck permit for Trolley Dogs, May 17th, 2024 at Hormel Stadium. Food Truck Permit for Planning with a Scorpio, May 26, 2024 at Hormel Stadium. Food Truck Permit for Work Hard, Eat Good, June 2, 2024 at Hormel Stadium. Food Truck Permit for Bocadillos, June 28, 2024 at Hormel Stadium. And Food Truck Permit for Hungry Nomads, June 22, 2024 at Nomad Stadium. Mr. Clerk, could you let me know, is this related to the Boston Glory, the Frisbee team that's playing at Hormel Stadium? It most certainly is, and the clerk loves it. He would like to be requested to throw out the first toss.
[Zac Bears]: I know. Has already done the first toss. Add a great slight to the clerk and this council.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to join and approve by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 70 in favor, none negative, motion passes. We have two things in unfinished business. Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the second one. Got it. So on the motion of Vice President Collins to take papers 22494 and 2224080 off the table. Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: They're taking off the table. 22494 is the button budget ordinance first in City Council after I believe six or seven committee meetings at which it was duly debated, discussed in public for an incredibly long this is a budget that was proposed in, uh, 12 months. Um 2 to 494 initially proposed in 2022. Um this budget ordinance we are now following for this year. It codifies into law, a process by which the council and the mayor's office will collaborate on the budget. We have been having preliminary budget meetings much earlier than we have in the past, and we are hearing from our and we have now had some timely financial reporting, and the ordinance requires further timely financial reporting going forward in all future years. So that is, I think, a significant improvement over some recent conditions. And with that, we approved it for first reading on March 19th, 2024. It was advertised in the Medford Transcript and Summerville Journal on April 11th, 2024, and it is now eligible for a third reading today, Tuesday, April 30th, 2024. Is there a motion on the floor? On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve for third reading, seconded by.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: To be ordained, indeed.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. And the affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes and the budget ordinance is ordained. 24080, the amendment proposed by the mayor, April 16th, 2024, to the personnel ordinance to increase the position of the supervisor of water and sewer. I guess I better get it right. I think it was from PW 18 to 19, but we can check. Give me one moment. And that's what it is. It is the motion to amend language of PW 18 shall be amended to remove the following position and language of PW 19 be amended to include the following position supervisor of water and sewer. We did receive a communication from the administration that there is not an active arbitration of grievance claim on this, and I believe. Councilor Scarpelli has moved to waive the three readings and move for approval for third reading this evening. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callahan, is there any objection by any councilor? It does require unanimous vote to waive all three readings. Seeing none, on the motion to ordain, to approve for third reading and ordain this change to the personnel ordinance by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the vote.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in the affirmative. None in the negative. Motion passes. And we just spent four minutes doing lawmaking, which was nice. And I mean to say that very specifically because often the most important work we do happens at the end of a meeting after 10 or 15 public meetings. And we just passed a budget ordinance for the first time in the city, so I'm very happy about that. There is public participation. Is there anyone who'd like to speak in public participation? And we have one person who'd like to speak in public participation. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. I can just speak for myself and Vice President Collins. I'll just speak for myself. You can speak for yourself. I have been in communication with the mayor and the Medford police since Friday about this issue and trying to liaise with protesters to implore Tufts to reach a negotiated solution. And I also do not support the use of public resources to address this protest by force. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I would just add that there are other campuses that have been able to reach agreements with protesters to maintain the protests. And I believe that Tufts has the capacity to do the same thing. I would also add, speaking directly to the conversation that we had tonight about the number of city resources that go to Tufts when they do not pay property taxes, that is particularly galling that they would ask us to use them to displace protesters. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the Council? Any further discussion by Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the public? Seeing none in the chamber, I will go to Bill Giglio on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Castagnetti. Mr. Castagnetti name and address.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to adjourn seconded by Councilor Nishikawa. Please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Negative. I'm sorry. Negative. Motion. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thanks for being here. Both of you. I think that it's a good sign that there's been some improvement. Seems like we're a little better off than we thought a couple of years ago in the initial plan. So I think that's that's really a strong sign. I do have a few questions. It does seem. You know, some roads are we have an improvement, an increase in the do nothing. We're in a good situation. So that's good. Basically, the routine maintenance of our miles in the same place, the preventative maintenance miles has gone down, but the base rehabilitation miles has gone up. And those are the most expensive streets. The report says that the. The recommendation is essentially to have a really substantial full resurfacing program in place to try to keep the structural improvement and moving that back up into preventative maintenance, just avoiding streets falling into the base rehabilitation. Is that something that the highway crew, if there were a highway crew to run the machines, would be able to do?
[Zac Bears]: And that would be like a more comprehensive resurface and taking a larger area. Yep. And that avoids going into base rehabilitation.
[Zac Bears]: And that seems like a major priority. Do you have a range on what it would, uh, you know, you said coming from two to three times a month to two to three times a week, do you have a range of what it might cost to have the staff level to do that for your team?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. To go from the two to three times a month to two to three times a week.
[Zac Bears]: And that'd be operating budget for your, that'd be staff essentially to run these machines regularly, more regular than staff and staff.
[Zac Bears]: My only other question, and I know that it is difficult to, you know, figure out exactly what the value of, say, the Eversource repaving on Winthrop Street is, or the various utility projects or developments that are upgrading roads and sidewalks are. But I do think I appreciate the mid-millions range, the mid seven figures range put out there. But at least this plan, there's a pretty significant, I could argue that 3.5 million is in the mid-millions, and I could argue that six million is in the mid-millions. And if those are the two kind of baseline scenarios here to address the backlog and you know the 6 million. we end up almost 30 million lower than we do at the three and a half million. So if there would be some way for us to at least have an estimate, I understand that it'd be difficult to say, you know, ever sources was worth this much money. So we had 6.21 million this year. I get that that's really not necessarily possible, but something to say, here's what we know. We spent some bond money on this. We spent chapter 90 on this. We think the utility value and developer value was a million or 2 million in that range. you know, something so that we could compare annual spending to these suggestions.
[Zac Bears]: It's a little better because of that.
[Zac Bears]: It deflates to how much we actually need to pay in the future.
[Zac Bears]: Great, yeah, and I appreciate that, and that's great that that's being done. I think even if it's not 100%, just being able to say we're closer to 6 million than 3.5 million, this is kind of, you know, the investments we've been able to make. And I think it's important for people to know too, right, like that specific, how much is coming from the utility side, right? We can make the case like we need this additional investment because we're not going to have Eversource doing three miles every year or every two years, right? That's an important thing to be able to say.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I think that's just helpful. It's like, what are the sources, whether it's Citi, Chapter 90 bond, utilities, that's getting us towards the six million so that we're making that steady improvement. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: And it's almost like there's two, buckets here, it's all the stuff to do to make sure a road doesn't get so bad, and then you have to spend a million and a half to do a road if it's that bad, and trying to keep the roads out of that. And it seems like that's, it seems like we've done a little bit of both, right? Like there's some roads that are in a better shape, but now there's a bunch of roads that are now in that bottom bucket, and that's the one where you're talking about big numbers and backlog. But my other question was on the sidewalks. I saw that the report I think is saying we need to spend about $2.5 million a year on sidewalks, or it says recommends the city continue to implement a baseline of $2.5 million to maintain current network conditions. So the aggregate total would be $6 million plus the $2.5 million, $8.5 million. Yes. Okay. Got it. And it does seem like the
[Zac Bears]: Just one, I noticed the sidewalk material that, which I'm assuming is asphalt, that stayed the same price, but Portland cement's gone up $3 a square foot. Is the city going to move to using asphalt for our sidewalks, or are we going to stick with cement?
[Zac Bears]: It was double the cost that you're talking about it being a significant cost.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think that was the justification from DCR. Oh, it's a little bit cheaper to use asphalt and it's a little bit cheaper to repair asphalt.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: you know, quality aspect of it is the flip side.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Not a question, but I did just want to note coming out of the financial task force press release from last month that working on what we've been talking about here around an in-house crew, which has been a priority of this council, since I've been on it, and since before I've been on it, it's clearly a priority of the department. It's something that the leadership of the school, well, the city council and the mayor are considering bringing forth as something to ask the residents to support, and I think This evidence, the evidence that we've seen in this report and what we've been talking about, and quite frankly, just the overwhelming public sentiment around the condition of our streets and sidewalks, more than indicates that that is a valuable investment to make. So I'm hopeful that it will be something we'll be able to do collectively and together to start really working on even more of this than we've been able to work on so far.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. And just a note, we'll be reconvening, planning and permitting.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Chair Collins, thanks for this update and the presentation. Super helpful to see. I just had a couple questions. One, just could you go a little bit more into when you mentioned that as site plan review is being discussed at the state level, could you go a little bit more into what those discussions look like? And, you know, what is, you know, is that a change, a legislative change or something else and what the likelihood of that happening in the near term is?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And thank you. I'm now seeing the, uh, the bill, um, taking a look at it.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it looks like it's been reported favorably, but now it's sitting, so who knows what that means. President Bears, for the record, what's the bill number? It is H3551.
[Zac Bears]: So at least that's one that the NMLA sent a comment letter in on in December.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Yeah, it looks like it's still alive. So that's more than you can say for a lot of bills in the legislature in April of the second year of the term. A couple other questions. So just so I understand the timeline, we are, is it fair to say that mainly what will be being worked on before June 30th are the definition questions, the site plan review questions, the update to the formats of the table of use, and I saw the digital, the GIS zoning map, or is that basically what we're working on between now and June 30th?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Got it. That's helpful. Thank you. And last thing is just a On the memo format, I think the memo is great. I think these presentations are fantastic. I think just a minor thing that might be helpful, at least would be helpful to me on the memo format is on the topics table. If we could split it out so that anything that's being considered in phase one is kind of in its own, or the proposed changes table, sorry. Anything that's being considered in phase one, be it like its own table and then anything that's maybe going after that. just be in a second table. The formatting could just stay the same, but I just think it's almost, you know, if it was an Excel spreadsheet, I would just sort it, you know, but that would just be helpful for me to kind of see what we're doing sooner rather than later, or at least considering doing sooner rather than later. And then I think also what might be valuable to include in the status memo and somewhere, you know, I'm not sure as I look through it exactly where maybe it would be, just before the topics table, or maybe just after the topics table, would be pulling out those items that we've already identified as needing further study. I know that that's going to be part of what we're doing in mapping over the next couple months, but I know we had a discussion in a recent meeting about the inclusionary, the transportation demand management, the linkage, and the need for the nexus study. And then we were also talking about, with planning development and sustainability, the neighborhood studies and the various grants that were RFPs put out, grants acquired. I think it might be useful to have a table that includes those items, just so that we can see how long that list is getting, if it starts to get longer, since those are the few items that will really take you know it's that where we may need to go out and get more funding or find more grants or have a six month or 12 month you know period where a study is happening so um that would just be another minor format change that would be helpful for me to see but otherwise this is uh you know i'm really excited um and i feel like having these memos updated every two weeks is a great way for us to just keep you know chugging and uh checking boxes and getting work done so thank you
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Collins. This may be a left fielder, so take it with what it is. When we talk about site plan review, I know that the 40B process is entirely outside of site plan review, but I just, you know, I see how often the ZBA is meeting on 40Bs and kind of negotiating these different projects. And, you know, some of them have, you know, not speaking to the process or to how the ZBA is handling it, because I'm sure they're doing everything that they need to be doing. It just does seem to be like it's a time consuming amount of time that the ZBA is spending on it. And I do know of at least one project where the time may have been determinative in future actions. And I'm just wondering if there's anything, is there anything that we can do in zoning to around the 40B process that isn't good in any way, you know, make that happen in a more timely manner or not have the ZBA having these extended, you know, four, five, six meeting sessions on 40B. And also, I'd be happy if chair or director Hunt or planner Evans has comments on that. I'm sure they have thoughts on it as well. And I also raise this in the context that we just had another 40B application, so.
[Zac Bears]: to clarify, is there some way we could create zoning that would encourage people to go a different path? Because I think that the reason for 40B's existence and wanting more affordable housing, all of that's fantastic. Great. But sometimes you have less than ideal outcomes from the 40B process where you can't do the mixed use. You can't do the larger planning. You can't align it with comp plan. So that kind of thing, too, I want to throw out there. But I'll stop. since I'm probably the least informed person on this.
[Zac Bears]: great. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I guess more my point is, it sounds like we could do an overlay or a PDD faster than we could. And it's again, I get why the ZBA is doing this on the 40B side, because it's outside of our zoning entirely, but it just seems like a less than ideal procedural. Yeah. It's really more my fault, throwing it out there.
[Zac Bears]: see and note that that recesses for public work. Got it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you guys for being here. So one of the issues that we have, I think, in our community is we have We have a local Chodo, and it's meant for community housing, but they're really small. They're doing, you know, a few units here, a few units there. So I think we have a hard time accessing home funds and then none of the really none of the bigger nonprofit, you know, affordable housing folks are focused on the city. So we don't have those partnerships. Do you guys have suggestions as to how we can build stronger partnerships or convince one of these larger groups to say that they want to add Metro to their catchment area? Because I think those are really some of the key missing links that we have to to accessing the funds and getting the project experience to coordinate the projects here in the city.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and have you seen any communities recently that you've been able to work with, that people at MHP have been able to work with, that have grown a Chodo like that, that have been able to see some of that success.
[Zac Bears]: Just that we should receive the presentation and place it on file. Oh, thanks. Withdrawal. Were there any motions out of the zoning in the first half of the meeting? No. Okay. I couldn't remember. Um, yes, a motion to receive in place the training and presentation from Mass Housing Partnership on file. Great.
[Zac Bears]: And adjourned. Make it all one.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council 12th regular meeting June 24, 2025 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Six present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise.
[Zac Bears]: Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records. 25-100 offered by Councilor Scarpelli and President Bears. Whereas the Medford City Council has learned with deep sadness of the passing of Richard Caraviello, who passed away June 3rd, 2025, at the age of 93. And whereas Richard Caraviello was a devoted son of the late Salvatore and Maria Contrada Caraviello, and a beloved husband to the late Angela Moscow Caraviello, and the late Mildred Tarifo. And whereas Richard honorably served his country in the United States Army during the Korean War, and has continued to serve his community as the longtime proprietor of Salve Sportwear, a business known for quality women's clothing and family values, and where as Richard's father to Richard Caraviello and his wife Carol, a proud grandfather to Richard and his wife Lisa, Lauren and her husband Joey Mangello, and Nicole and her husband Stephen Gaudet, and a cherished great-grandfather to Gianna, Joey, Richie, Nicholas, Juliana, Isabella, James and Michael, and whereas Richard was a dear brother of the late Fred, Salvatore, Junie, Frank, Smokey, Tina, Clara, and Armand Caraviello, and is lovingly remembered by many nieces and nephews, extended family members, and friends, and whereas Richard Caraviello will be remembered as a man of his humble service and unwavering pride in his Medford roots, now therefore be it resolved that the Medford City Council extends its sincerest condolences to the Caraviello family and expresses its heartfelt appreciation for the life, service, and legacy of Richard Caraviello, and be it further resolved that this resolution be spread upon the records of the Medford City Council and a suitably engrossed copy be presented to the Caraviello family as a lasting expression of sympathy and gratitude. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. I served with Rick for four years.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee of the whole April 23rd 2024 is called the order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present 6 present, 1 absent. The meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting in the Medford City Council, Committee of the Whole, 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford, MA, and via Zoom. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss paper 24-045, the annual budget process for fiscal 25. This is a preliminary budget meeting. And tonight this is the second preliminary budget meeting of the FY 25 budget process. The mayor has communicated the following presentations will occur in the following departments will be present. We will have a presentation by director finance director Bob Dickinson on the budget. as it stands now, kind of the top lines of the budget, and we will also hear from the legislative department, which is the city council, the city clerk, and the finance department. So we are all here and we are all present. Given that, I will turn it over to the chief of staff and the finance director, Nina Nazarian and Bob Dickinson, to give us the first look at our fiscal 25 budget, as well as a financial update.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just to clarify that too, you can go, the Division of Local Services has a great website online where you can see the cherry sheet. You can see the historical cherry sheet and also the estimates of different budgets. Thank you, Shane, for giving us a booster for the microphone. And I think the other thing to note, maybe just backing up right to the beginning here, tonight we're basically just talking about the general fund budget. we're not talking about water store enterprise and then we're not talking about anything else special revenue funds or other fee fee or grant funded essentially things that are outside of the general fund budget council
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, the way that the state works, so and I worked on a bunch of education legislation, which is the only reason I'm chiming in here, but. There is a charter school reimbursement formula. So when a student moves from the public school system to the charter school system, there's a three-year step-down reimbursement. In their first year, I think it's 100%, second year, 80%, third year, 60%, and the year after that, 0%. So we send out over 8 million, I think, or around 8 million a year. to charter schools we only get back somewhere in the one to two million dollar range maybe 1.6 I'd have to look at the cherry sheet but it's um it's does not fully reimburse the cost of charter sending and charter sending is our by far the biggest assessment that is placed on the city by the state so that so this is just sorry this is just the quick summary of what revenue we we receive from the state on the bottom
[Zac Bears]: They're giving us back, uh,
[Zac Bears]: But 631 in the house ways and means. Right. So it's a total mess.
[Zac Bears]: I just put up the cherry shoot for a second. You might have to put that back. But this is the revenue side. And this is the estimate that Bob was using here. This 34, I'm guessing, if you're using the governor's budget estimate. And then these are the charges. So the T is about $5 million. Charter school sending is $8 plus million. Somehow the Taos formula has us paying a lot less, but also getting a lot less back. Sorry to interrupt your share. You may re-share your presentation.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, Councilor Kiley.
[Zac Bears]: You can also see that if you go to the Division of Local Services Municipal Finance dashboard,
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. There's a motion from Councilor to request the new growth. You want the amounts for the last 3 fiscal years.
[Zac Bears]: Great, we will. I have that motion we'll take all the motions at the end of the meeting. So we'll have a motion to last 3 years of projections and the actuals for new growth for the property tax. The new growth element.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Anyway, it's- Point being, we would like to not have this happen.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any questions at this point? Seeing none, I will say I think that is a, you know, we need to see the expense side of things, but that's almost $10 million more than last year, so we can always do better and do more, but that is a relatively significant number, and I think we should be aware of that. Our costs are probably growing faster, and I'm sure that's what the next slides are going to tell us.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have a general estimate of across the whole budget what the contractual increases are? Like a dollar amount?
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: I think that down the line, as we move through the process, that'll be kind of helpful for us to see and show. You know, I've already got it here at just with these three, the health insurance and given the pension and workers comp. So we have 9 million more revenue. Just those three items is 3.5 out, because that's a fixed cost increase on the benefit side. As we move through the department budgets, we'll be able to see however many millions the contractual obligations to our union and non-union employees cost. That's probably millions more. And then we're talking about that 9 million increase going away pretty quickly with the cost growth that we have without adding anything new or doing anything more than we're doing right now. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: And along those lines, just essentially when we're in the Group Insurance Commission, the GIC, we are with almost every other city and town buying health insurance with them. The idea being that in a larger pool, you pay less. Is this a proposed rate increase or did the Group Insurance Commission actually vote this increase through?
[Zac Bears]: It's been voted. Okay. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Is the river's edge?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Dickinson. I'm going to go to Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: There's a motion from Councilor Scarpelli to ask if there are any budget shortfalls for departments for FY24. we'll take that at the end. If you want to thank you, President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: The question I think was, Are there any budget freezes on the city side or any budgets that are expected to be frozen on the city side for fiscal 24? I believe Director Dickinson answered very clearly no. And you came up to add that there are positions that are currently funded through ARPA that may not be funded in the future, but that that's not going to affect this year's. There's no freezes related to that in the current budget.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I think on a few things here, just looking at the quarter three actuals and the quarter two actuals, I've been looking at all of them. The big six or seven budgets that I'll see, most of the budget is DPW highway, DPW water, sewer, fire, health insurance, pensions, police, and the school department. The Metropolitan Public Schools, that's basically the vast majority of the budget. It seems like we're pretty well on track there. So I don't really have that many questions, you know, I will say, you know, as I've noted, speaking with the chief of staff, and the chief of staff has noted here at the podium when we've had specific discussions, there's the elections department. Which needs might need an end of year transfer because of the cost of the recount, which was obviously on budgeted and unexpected. Is there anything else that you guys want to talk about from the current fiscal year 24? Any budgets or anything that you'd like to inform us of beyond the presentation that you've made?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah. And I mean, again, just looking at this, the pension, you know, pension obligation is a huge one that's been paid out because that's paid as a lump sum is my understanding.
[Zac Bears]: For example, the bonds. That's to come in later. Yeah. So, but yeah, I mean, everything in here, if you, I just, I took your sheet and I put some percentages next to it for my own edification and the vast majority of our departments are under 75%, which you'd expect them to be around 75% or less, unless they have one of those big one-time payments at a strange time of year. It looks like we paid the trash contract. It looks like we paid the MWRA. So we've been, doing our job. I do have a couple questions. I will defer to my fellow councillors first. I saw Councilor Callaghan. Is there anybody else? But you didn't have it. Okay. Any questions from anyone else so far? Got it. Okay. So, um, just on the budget, you know, something that we've talked about, and I know we'll look at it in the future. Um. But I really appreciate having this top line number the 188.59Million available for the general fund budget. which again is almost exactly $9 million more than the fiscal 24 available for the general fund budget. You've already shown us that just from health insurance, workers' compensation and the pension rate increases, that over a third of that $9 million is going just to the cost of benefits, fixed cost growth of the benefits for the city employees and school employees. Contractual obligations will eat up another large chunk of that as well. I think something that will be helpful for us to know in the future, and I know we're getting them as we've been meeting so far in these preliminary meetings, but something I really appreciated hearing last week in our 1st budget meeting was that the. departments were asked to make requests based on what, you know, not that their requests were not tailored. And I think that that is a really great thing to hear, because we can hear from our departments what they think their need is for staff and programming in the fiscal year. I also understand that those requests came in. The total of those requests was some amount above 188.59 million, which I think is unsurprising considering just how much need every single department in the city has for additional staff and additional resources. I mean, we all see it every day in a myriad ways. Maybe a little bit more if you're in this building all the time, but I think we also see it out in the community all the time where a lot of needs are unmet due to underfunding. At some point, if If it's easier, I know you guys are super busy and we're pulling all this together for this meeting. And I really appreciate the work that you put in to do that forward and having that number of knowing what that initial budget request was from each of the departments, I think will be really helpful. I know that you guys in the department heads did a lot of work in the past few weeks to say, okay. We know this is our revenue estimate. We're going to go to the department and say, what do you think this year that we know you asked for this, but can you maybe not bring it in this year? We're also trying to bring on. 1 time funded positions from ARPA onto the general fund. So there's a lot of competing needs. But at some point, having that initial budget request and then seeing the hard work done by the administration and the department heads to kind of narrow that gap between what was requested and this revenue estimate would be helpful. And then I know just from some preliminary conversations that you're still working out the final amount. There's still some hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring the expense number down to equal the revenue number, which of course we have to do because we are required to have a balanced budget every year. Having those additional numbers will be helpful for us to understand, you know, what was requested that the departments need what we aren't able to do this year because of the fiscal restraint and restrictions put on us by what we're allowed to do as a community when it comes to raising revenue. And then we can certainly work. to explain and educate the public on why we couldn't do certain things this year, work together to understand what was prioritized and what wasn't prioritized based on trying to save staff positions and make sure our departments can continue to provide the service level that they currently provide to the community. So look forward to doing that. There's no form of emotion there. We've been communicating about it, so we'll continue to communicate about it. Is there any other comments or comments? Just a second, Councilor Scarpelli, I'll come to you in a second. I have Vice President Collins, Councilor Callahan, Councilor Scarpelli, and we'll talk about the legislative clerk and finance budgets. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Back of the napkin of insurance, pensions, and workers' comp is like between 20 and 25% of the budget. It was last year's $41 million on a $180 million budget base, $179 million. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, just to clarify, the budgets we got last week and I believe the budgets we have tonight were those as requested by the department heads. I do know that the administration has made some adjustments. They're making adjustments from those initial requests to create the final budget.
[Zac Bears]: It's not a wish list. It's what they would like to see this year, but not necessarily the dream budget per se.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions or discussion on the presentation from our finance director? All right, let's go into the rest of this meeting, which is to discuss the three budgets. We can start, since you're already up at the podium, with the finance department. This was included in the packets online and in our print packets. Basically, I was asking, Four questions. I know I don't think any of these departments have narrative for tonight. If you want to come back and present your narrative at a later date, I know we'll be seeing a lot more of you over the next two months. Oh, you haven't. You haven't. Great. Even better. But the questions I was asking of each department, since this is a preliminary budget meeting, were, first, is there anything you want to share about your department this year, what you've done over the past year? What was your budget request? Are there any programs that you didn't request this year that you are looking to fund in the future, not necessarily in fiscal 25, but in future budgets? And then after the budget is presented at the end of May, let us know if you'd like to be invited back to talk more about your department. So those are the questions. I can go over them as well, but feel free to go right ahead. Director Dickinson. And just before you start, I'm looking at finance procurement at a total of $859,901,965. that is an increase of $136.30 and $0.65 from the previous fiscal year. And most of that is looking like if finance is absorbing the cost of the admin's program subscription.
[Zac Bears]: I know, you know, Courtney and Adam and we sat down with, uh, to talk about the legislative budget. And I think it was one of the toughest conversations we had, because we asked for nothing to change at all. So seriously, Courtney was great.
[Zac Bears]: When is FY23 coming out? I think I'm the only person who's waiting for the debut date.
[Zac Bears]: And that is the other post-employment benefits? Yes. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Well, thank you very much. Any questions for the director about the finance department's proposed budget for fiscal 2025? I've got two questions for you. One, in terms of the RFPs, you said nine months, hopefully, to get some RFPs back on the financial software.
[Zac Bears]: Sandisfield. Sandisfield.
[Zac Bears]: Florida.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Well, I know that's been a priority of this council, and I do hope that, you know, the solution that we come to enables everyone to do their job more efficiently and not have the reconciliation and the data cross between multiple systems that we're dealing with right now, because I know that would be a boon to everybody. in terms of just making things easier, making things more timely, making it maybe easier. I know, you know, basically I feel like we invite you here, we ask you to do a bunch of work every time you come. So, you know, maybe this new system will make that a little bit less burdensome.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And it's noticed. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: And I just had one last question, which is just on the clear outside of things. You know, I know we ran into some issues last year where some of the actuals uploaded in the clear of were not the right actuals. And so, um, you know, just wanted to fly that again, because I think it is probably the place that most people look to see what's going on with the city's finances. Um, and something I've also noticed some other communities and again. Just going back to my asking you to do more work piece of this whole thing. Um. Some communities will update the budget after approval to reflect any amendments or adjustments to the budget process. I think we generally have been keeping up just the proposed version, or I'm not 100% sure about that, but that it's staying as the proposed budget versus the approved budget that people say. Where can I find the approved budget? And it's, you know, well, this is pretty close, but it's not it's not 100%. So those are just some things about the clear side of things that feedback we hear from residents that might be helpful to for just for residents to see it. And then, you know, we can put on, you can. Maybe you can add in this budget was approved June whatever by the council. These were the adjustments and this is the final approved amount. And then we can point people to say, that's the approved amount. I'm not sure how any of that works on the back end, but that's some of the feedback that we hear from residents who are trying to learn more about the budget.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And even just, I'm just in here right now, there's like a FY20 is presented strangely in the general fund summary and section three.
[Zac Bears]: I think the great thing is that with the most of this shell built, now it's, you know, you can focus even more on the details of improving it, which I think is great. Any more questions for the finance director? Seeing none. Thank you, Bob.
[Zac Bears]: The other two budgets that we have here are the clerk's office and the legislative department. For the clerk, we'll go to the clerk. Mr. Clerk.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any questions for the clerk on the clerk's budget?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I think that's a huge change. I'll also shout out the, uh, the marriage. That's another change, right? Yeah. Moving to online software, which is great. So, um, always good to hear and fingers crossed. We'll be at full staff in the clerk's office in a few weeks. That would be great for the first time in a while.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, and so that'll be great. All right, I see no questions for the clerk. If there's anything else you want to share about plans for the future, you're welcome to, and we have you here at our mercy at all times, so we can ask you those questions whenever we want.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. The last budget we have is the, and I'll just read it out really quickly. The total budget proposed for the clerk's office is $404,133.86. That is an increase of $19,977.86 from fiscal 24. And essentially all of that increases in the raises for the staff, the contractual raises for the staff in that department. And it looks like, you were able to find about $1,800 worth of some efficiencies on the ordinary expense side. It's looking like some, where are we? Oh yeah, subscriptions, subscriptions, publications, 2,500.
[Zac Bears]: I think you upped office equipment by about 1,000 there, so I can see it. Oh, sorry, office equipment, my apologies, yes, 500 and 200, yep.
[Zac Bears]: Last budget is the legislative budget, totaling 312,689. I'm going to triple check, but I believe that that is identical to our proposed legislative budget for fiscal 24, which it is. Yep. And there was no change. There's also no change from the prior year there. We are getting into one of these conundrums where the longer you don't change something, the more you have to change it. So I will note that for the future, although I am certainly not proposing anything. No change proposed. I am going to ask our finance department for one shift, if possible, if we could shift $1800 from line item 5240, which is our legislative repair and maintenance line item to 5202 for the videographer. Our videographer has made a request to be paid closer to market rates and we would like to retain his services. So that's our 1 request. There's no shift within the node. No amount. The amount would stay the same. Uh, and given the actuals of legislative repair and maintenance, we believe that that is a. You know, we're very much under on that software.
[Zac Bears]: 5240 is our line item for civic clerk software, meeting code software, essentially our legislative softwares for codification and for The now running of our agendas and uploading of minutes and the agenda and meeting minutes portal. So we haven't had a full year expenditure there yet. So we're waiting to see what that will look like. We used to fund the, I'm going to forget the name of it. IQM2 software package that the council used to have. It's similar to what Somerville used to use for their legislative maintenance, but that was where we were able to stream from room 207 before the pandemic, before we moved to Zoom. President Morell and I were reviewing the budget and found that we were still paying for that software even though we were not using it. And so we decided to stop doing that and to look at this new civic clerk software which has been actually was cheap quoted cheaper and has been fun serving more of the functions that we needed it to serve than the prior software package and the professional technical services other 5310 that is our funding for the zoning project. So we split that with the Planning Development Sustainability Office. That's our chunk of it for next year. We had the same amount this year, which was committed in both of the, this year and next year are both committed through the procurement process to that contract. Any further questions about the legislative budget? Again, there's no proposed change. Seeing none, any further discussion? I saw some general nods. Are we cool with moving that money around in the legislative budget? I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: That would be great. I have a motion of Councilor Scarpelli to request that we shift 1800 from line item ending 5240 to the line item ending 5202. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Now I will go to the Chief of Staff. Sorry about that, Madam Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, got it. Thank you, and yeah, we can talk that through. So we have motions from, I think we have three motions, and they are, yes, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seeing a yes on that, we'll get that emailed out to everybody. I think the motions are to request the three years of new growth numbers, the projections and the actuals. We have the one on the, that we just did on moving the money around. What was the third one? Update. Yes, budget shortfalls 2024, if any. Great. On those motions. Uh, all by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Leming. Are we comfortable taking it? I think we just vote on them all at once. Sure. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative, motion passes. Any further discussion for this meeting before the, sorry, six in the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Any further discussion before the next meeting? Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice-President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callaghan, to adjourn, and just a reminder to everybody on Zoom or on TV that there is a Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee meeting starting sometime soon after this meeting. There will be a new Zoom, but it should still be on the same channel on cable. Any further discussion seen? None. On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Callaghan, to adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes. 60.1 absent. The motion passes. The meeting is adjourned. See everyone in a few minutes for resident services.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. We sent a paper to this committee to discuss the creation of a home rule petition.
[Zac Bears]: petition for a real estate transfer fee to discuss the before let's sort of about set a paper to committee to discuss the creation of paper committee to discuss and then you can delete the second there's two committee twice in there I think similarly under the rent stabilization, would ask the state to give the city of Medford the permission to... Wait, would ask the state to... Instead of the word for, just to give the city of Medford the...
[Zac Bears]: It's going out to the city listserv, so it's going out to the same listserv that all the mayor's communications go out to.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of edits under the general business. If you could scroll up just so we could see that. Could you make the committee structure a separate bullet? So after that first sentence, and then it should be, can we just say that it was technically two different papers. So we also, we voted to establish a new committee structure with the following seven committees. Okay. All right. So we also didn't even have to say also, we just, we voted. to establish a... Oh, what is that? Okay, it's editing the stuff I've deleted. You can just click before the created to see and create it. Yeah. Wait, we voted to establish. We can get rid of created. And if we could change it to committee structure with the following seven committees. Yeah. And if we could alphabetize, I think if you just copy administration and finance, then it should be administration and finance would be first, then education and culture.
[Zac Bears]: And then resident services and public engagement will be at the end.
[Zac Bears]: Last but certainly not least. Okay. And then my only other comment, I think this is really great. Wait, which section? Actually, I have two. Now I have two. It looks like NSAssociates just said twice. End NS, OK. And maybe that comma should be a period. Associates, wait. Or after ltd, it should be which has worked, something, comma, which has worked, or who have worked.
[Zac Bears]: And then I forwarded you just right as this meeting was starting, an email for the very beginning. One of the things that I, in my former career as a writer, Starting with the lead is always important. And I emailed you a suggested- I'm a scientist, so you could see that I just- It's technical. It's technical. It is technical. I emailed you and the clerk a suggested change to that paragraph, that whole paragraph. Yeah. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Yeah, that last lead changes all I have. My only other suggestion that I will stop impinging on your meeting is I think it might be valuable if the committees also went in alphabetical order, like the sections.
[Zac Bears]: City Council, Committee of the Whole, April 17, 2024. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli is absent due to illness, but said he would be paying attention.
[Zac Bears]: present six present one absent. The meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee. The whole at six p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts and via Zoom. The action and discussion item for today is 24-045 Annual Budget Process for Fiscal 25 Preliminary Budget Meeting. And we, I'll just go over the calendar again for the budget process. We are following the soon to be finalized budget ordinance which is eligible for third reading on April 30th but we have agreed to implement it already which is great and that started with individual budget recommendations submitted by councillors to the council by March 1st. The council submitted a collective budget recommendation to the mayor by March 22nd And now we are in the April 15th to May 15th, 2024, where we are holding preliminary budget meetings with department heads. Tonight we have the Council on Aging, Medford Community Media, and our Veterans Services Department. And this is our first ever preliminary budget meeting under the new budget ordinance, so I'm excited for it. I hope everyone's excited as I am. But I think really just to go into that for a minute, I again want to thank the administration for this new process that we're working under. The idea of these meetings is to hear from departments what they've requested before we get the budget so we can have some discussion, some input, hear what departments are thinking and wanting, and then obviously understanding what our fiscal limits are with what we're actually able to fund at the end of the process. We'll get the budget. see what the differences are, be able to come back and invite departments back if they need to come back. The mayor can invite, the council can invite after the budget is submitted, so that would be in June. If what you present here today is what ends up in the budget proposal in June, then I'm guessing we're probably good to go and we'll have one meeting. Of course, if you want to come back, or if the mayor wants you to come back, or we do just for fun, maybe we'll invite you. But that's really the scope of the meeting tonight. And we also received, thank you, Madam Chief of Staff for the budget to actuals up through quarter two. and some other materials. And then next Tuesday, we'll be meeting with the finance director talking about the legislative clerk and finance department budgets. And we will also be talking about a general top line presentation of the city budget for fiscal 25, which I think will be Good, good to get going on sooner than later. We all have been talking about for over a year now. And really, since I've been on the council, the difficult type budgets that we've had this year, we have the fiscal cliff of the federal funding from ARPA and ESSER that are no longer going to be available to the city. It is going to be an important budget season, and I'm glad that we are moving ahead with the process as we are. So with that, I will go to the Chief of Staff, if you want to say anything up front, since this is just our first meeting, if there's anything else you want to add, and then we can go through in order. We'll go with Council on Aging, and then Medford Community Media, and then Veterans Services. And I'll ask a few questions, and then Councilors will be able to ask some questions as well. we're going to have a meeting with the city council after a presentation.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions at this time, or do we want to hear from the departments?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments, questions by the council before we move to our first department? Seeing none, we will go to the Council on Aging, Director Kelly, and, you know, basically just some standard questions. You've done this before, so you get to model it for everybody. We'd love to hear just what was your budget request for the year, and then kind of anything you want to share narrative-wise about your year as a department. And then I'll ask a couple more follow-up questions, and then we can go to questions from the Council. So, welcome.
[Zac Bears]: We haven't seen the narrative yet. Oh, you haven't? I do apologize. No, that's if you want to read us through it, maybe an advanced copy. This is our first one, so now we have some comments. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, yeah, if you want, or even a high-level summary.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you so much. My only other questions are, were there any other programs that you didn't request this year that you might request in the future or any kind of future investments you're hoping to see from the city and the center?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And just my only other question, and this is just for me looking at the, I know you have your position and the office manager position and the social worker position part-time in the budget. I do see there's a community outreach coordinator on the city website. Is that a grant funded position?
[Zac Bears]: State funded position, great.
[Zac Bears]: And that is the yes. Sorry about that. My bad. Miss that one building maintenance as well. And my only other note, it just there's an office manager title on the city website, but then it says administrative clerk in the city budget. And I was just wondering if there was a if there's a reason for that, or is that just technical?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it might be something we look at in the classification. Absolutely.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. Great. Thank you so much. Those are my questions. Any questions or comments from members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Well, I've seen no other hands raised. I think I'll try to summarize, but basically it looks like about an $8,000 increase from fiscal 24 to fiscal 25, and it's all in your fixed costs of the union contract and some equipment costs that went up.
[Zac Bears]: Cool. and all the other amazing things that you're doing as well, but we'll just boil it down to the brass tacks for the budget meeting. Yeah, so at this point, thank you so much for the presentation. We love all the work you do. Obviously, feel free to engage us any time of year in any way that we can be helpful. If there's ever anyone we want to recognize, if you want to pass along all the 100th birthdays for us to put on for commemorative resolutions, we're happy to do that. Thank you. We will await to see the budget presentation and I'm guessing that if it's 275, 226, 79, then we're going to be all set and ready to we won't have to have you have you back to do another run through the through the machine. So we're hoping for that. And thank you so much for everything that you guys do.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: All right. All right. One down, two to go. We will go next to our Medford Community Media, Kevin Harrington, to present his budget for fiscal 25, budget request for fiscal 25. And Kevin, just if you wanna start off with what your request was, maybe how that differed from last year, and share a little bit of what, like Pam did, what your department's up to, what you're hoping to add, and see you over the next year.
[Zac Bears]: Shane, that's what we call him.
[Zac Bears]: I will ask no questions about SAT words. But I do the one other kind of standard question, just as you kind of went into it a little bit, is there anything not requested this year and this year's budget request that you're probably looking for in the future? It sounded like maybe in the future, some capital related stuff around video switcher, but anything on staff side, personal side that you're looking towards that you knew we weren't going to go for this year?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Well, thank you. You know, I just want to say personally, thank you. You're one of the departments we work with the most as you're broadcasting our meetings. And, you know, Sarah's been great. And we miss Kat and we miss you filling in in the interim. You know, but we, you know, and I've been really grateful to work with you on this ARPA project that we are. We're crossing the finish line on after floods and staff shortages and a variety of other natural and artificial disasters. So it's going to be great, I think, just to talk about the project really quickly. We're going to have a significantly improved audio quality for folks in this space and online. I think especially for online, I believe we're going to have the ability to change levels of microphones to adjust for different volumes of speech, which we currently can't do. And sometimes we go from a pretty quiet talk to a pretty loud talk. And the last thing you want is the mic all the way up for someone speaking quietly and someone chimes in loudly and we blow out everyone's TV speakers back at home. So I think that's going to be great. And we're going to have a little bit better meeting management as well. And maybe a few fewer taped cables on the floor, which I think will make us all feel better. So that's been really a great project to work on. Really excited for MCM, hoping to get classes back and, you know, It's just a great, great stuff that you're doing. So hopefully we can expand it a bit more in the future. And I will go to Councilor Callaghan, Councilor Tseng, Councilor Leming, Vice President Collins. Appreciate that, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Should we talk about a certain admittance to a certain school of a certain sweatshirt?
[Zac Bears]: And I would just throw out two things on that. I believe the administration has a remote participation policy of some kind. We have also, so that would be for boards and commissions, and I don't know what the school committee's policy is. We have in our rules said that we will permanently maintain virtual access. The only thing that the change in state law would change would be the presence of Councilors. So virtually present Councilors would not count towards quorum if that law were to expire, but they could participate remotely and we would still, we've put it into our rules to maintain the virtual access as part of council business going forward. I don't wanna speak to the intent of the administration's policy, but when I said, hey, Steve, link to the records, he said, hey, we already linked to the policy. So I'm guessing they might be in the same ballpark of some kind, but I also know that there's just been some dispute in the legislature about the specifics of making it permanent and how that applies to towns and communities. I mean, I think it applies here in Medford, quite frankly, you know, it's another, I think it's a great value. I think the MMA and some other cities and town governments have said it was an unfunded mandate. We don't have the technology and resources to, we don't have the money to pay for the technology resources and staff to maintain the system. So if the state requires it is the state going to pitch in some funds and I think there's been disputes as to what that would look like and who would be eligible, and if the state is going to create some sort of fund that communities can apply for grants from or not. So I'm hoping that. I'm hoping they work that all out. But for us, I think we should be good for the council. Although we have had some requests to go back to meeting in the smaller committee rooms and maybe the more collegial atmosphere that that enshrines. So that may be something to discuss as well. not to steal any, for some reason I read too much. I will go to Vice President, unless you're done Council, do you have more questions? No, I'm good. All right, cool, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I think we can send those questions. We maybe have a motion to ask those questions of the finance department. Given what you looked up, you said it was 236 from Comcast.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and it sounds like Verizon didn't reply, but Comcast did.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah. And I would just like to like, you know, my understanding is that, Comcast, there's more Comcast subscribers than Verizon subscribers. So it's based on the total charge, I'd guess. The Verizon is probably less than the Comcast. And the other thing, and maybe it's just useful to put out budget wide all the time, because sometimes even I get a little mixed up with it. I think there is one thing that kind of, There's a bunch of money that is technically going to pay for benefits for employees of MCM. That's not in the MCM budget line item, right? So health insurance, pensions, other benefits, those are in the health insurance line item. So, you know, paying for the full cost of our staff, it actually doesn't all appear in the line item for the departmental budget for that department. So sometimes it's like, you know, I mean, you can look at it a lot of different ways, but, and I think it's probably for, readability purpose is better than it's in its own thing, in its own budget line that it's split up across the entire city and with individual lines and then having to figure out how much is health insurance for X, Y, Z person. But that is something where there could be funds, like say there was a restricted, if PEG funds are restricted, we can ask the question, they may be going to benefits for you that are technically not in your line item budget, but that are being, that you're entitled to. Um, is there a motion to request the peg fees paid to the city by Comcast and Verizon? On the motion of Vice President Collins, do you want to amend it? Or second it? Second it. On the motion, Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callaghan to request from the Finance Department the peg fees paid by Comcast and Verizon. When you're ready, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 60 affirmative one absent the motion passes and we are there any more questions members of the council? We do have a member of the public's hand raised on zoom. Seeing no questions by the Council, I will recognize Eunice on Zoom if you have a question about the Medford Community Media Budget.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Eunice. Um, I got the three questions down. If you have them down, I will just say on the YouTube, we're still working on it. We ran into a bit of a logistical thing where you can only attach a one YouTube account to one zoom account. So then we kind of had the discussion, do we have to make a separate YouTube account for every, um, for every meeting of the city. And that became kind of, I think, a sticking point of, do we want to do that? And if people have to go look for 20 different Zoom accounts or YouTube accounts, does that really make it accessible? So that's my understanding where we left and are still talking through it, but that's the only piece of this that I have any answer to. So I'll go to you, Kevin.
[Zac Bears]: once we went into the hybrid mode, there were play counts at some point. I think it was, and maybe it's changed since then, and maybe there's a way to set, I don't know anything about the settings or anything, but I think it was only showing play counts for full playthroughs. So you'd have to have watched zero to three hours, 40 minutes, or at least fast forward to the end and then let it finish. So it would show like a play count of like three for every meeting. And obviously I've, you know, One person probably looked at it more than three times, but I think that may have been why Patrick shut it off was it was, you know, people are like, well, only three people watch this meeting. And it's like, well, that's just because nobody watched it to the end. It's like when you're on iTunes and it doesn't count if you played the song, if you skip it, like, even if you want listen to the first two hours, two minutes and 30 seconds, the last 15 seconds. So.
[Zac Bears]: That's a COVID haze memory, so I could be wrong, but that's what I remember.
[Zac Bears]: We need money to do things. It's an answer we hear a lot. Thank you, Kevin. Eunice, I see your hand still up, so I will unmute you if you just have any further comments you want to make or if you want to ask any follow-ups.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Thank you, Kevin. And if I'm guessing that we'll do the bottom line summary again, you said 20442737, which is about a 3000 dollar increase from prior year. And that's just essentially fixed cost increases and some, some materials and staff and. I'm guessing that if that's what ends up in the final budget, that we won't need to see you back here again, unless you want to, feel free to ask. We're happy to hire you from here again.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: All right, and we are going to now our last budget of the night. We are going to veteran services. And we're going to Director Veronica Shaw, welcome for your first meeting with us. We're excited to have you here. It's a first for you and it's a first for us in the preliminary budget meeting. And as you can see, that is our current workaround system for our podium microphone. So I'm really excited for that to get fixed in the next few months.
[Zac Bears]: And if you could send, if they will, or may, you know, just let me know. And if you could send the request sheet to the budget request, like the spreadsheet, because folks are coming up with it. If you could send that and just say they will have a narrative, won't have a narrative, and then perfect. I think that's why we have this first meeting.
[Zac Bears]: And the request is more just to say that, traditionally, these have been opportunities for departments to share. the wonderful things they're doing and we don't want to not have that opportunity so if folks haven't had aren't at the stage where they have the narrative yet you know we would be happy to invite them back after the budget proposal to come back and we can have the supplemental conversation and if you want to do that more than welcome to have you to do that um and uh and just for me to just have the heads up to know who who does and doesn't and we can keep track of if we want to have people back because that is something i think that's really a nice thing and sometimes otherwise kind of more boring, technical, detailed, and sometimes difficult budget conversations to at least have the public forum to share all the great work that the administration team is doing.
[Zac Bears]: Cool. Thank you. All right. Welcome, director. It's great to have you. And, you know, we'll just start out with, you know, your budget requests, anything you want to share about the department this year that you've done this year or anything you're planning about the future year. It doesn't have to be a full narrative or anything, but, you know, just really anything. especially as you've started, and just really anything you wanna share about what you do. We've heard from some of your predecessors. We know the amazing work and how much money has been brought in to support veterans and their families in our community and how important and valuable that is. So, well, I have, I shouldn't speak for Councilor Callahan, Councilor Levin, and Councilor Lazzaro, because this is their first budget cycle. But yeah, just take it away. We'd love to hear your budget request, what's changing, and then anything you'd like to say about what you do.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And do you have the total number there, just so we can write it down?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much. So what's going on in Veterans Services? How's it been the first few months?
[Zac Bears]: Well, thank you so much. Much appreciated. Really up to you. I mean, well, unless the council requests it, up to you and the administration if you wanna come back later and share even more. But we'd love to have you and we really appreciate the work that you do. So I will go to Councilor Leming, Vice President Collins and Councilor Callahan in that order. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to Vice President Collins, Councilor Callahan, and then Councilor Zargarpur.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. We'll go to Councilor Callaghan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Councilor Lazzaro on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Wonderful. Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Any further comments or questions by members of the council at this time? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: We've got some meeting recordings.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thank you so much. Just going to do the same thing as I've done for every other department so far. The request is about a little over 7000 more than the previous year's budget, just addressing fixed cost growth. There's no new major programs, no new staff. So, it's essentially a slightly slightly above a level funded budget. Certainly what I think we can all call a level service budget, you'll be able to keep doing next year what you're doing this year. And that, at the very least, is our baseline, especially during difficult budget years. So I'm really glad to hear that that's going to happen for veteran services, and as well our Medford Community and our Council on Aging. So that is great. If there is nothing else, so thank you very much for joining us, and we will go to the Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: Great But do you know, just my only housekeeping on this, do you know when Director Dickinson will be able to get the quarter three materials?
[Zac Bears]: Great. And anything you have, I understand some of it may not be ready yet, but maybe the legislative clerk and finance, the departmental budgets, if we can have those sheets, we can put them in. the packets for everybody for before next Tuesday's meeting. Yep. Great. Understood. Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. And we will see you Tuesday, which is just so everyone knows is a reschedule from it's not administration finance of the committee of the whole 6 p.m. Big fun presentation from our leadership team. And we will also hear the legislative clerk and finance department budgets at that meeting. And maybe Vice President Collins will buy us some food. I'm just making sure we traditionally have food at budget meetings.
[Zac Bears]: All right, okay. Well, that's we've gone too far. Councilor Callaghan.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Callaghan to adjourn. Second. By Councilor Leming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Eighth regular meeting, Medford City Council, April 16th, 2024. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. 7 present none absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records. Records, the records of the meeting of April 2nd, 2024 were passed to Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng, how did you find the records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve the records, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callaghan. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: We're in the middle of a roll call, so that's a no. That's a no, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's the affirmative, one in the negative, motion passes. Reports of committees. 24-074, Public Health and Community Safety Committee, April 9th, 2024. Councilor Lazzaro is the chair of that committee. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of council's order approve the committee report seconded by. Seconded by Vice-President Collins. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes 70 affirmative. None. The negative motion passes in the report is approved 24-033 planning and permitting committee April 10 2024 committee report offered by Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins, please present the report.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have affirmative, non-negative. The motion passes. 24-075, offered by Councilor SCARPELLI. Councilor COLLINS. motion to suspend the rules to take 24082 out of order present bears on the motion to suspend the rules to take paper 24-082 by Councilor Khan, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have any further item than the negative? Motion passes. Councilor COLLINS, if you would take the chair for this item.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I wanted to thank a resident, Paul McCaffrey, for bringing this to my attention. And I know we have a lot of folks in our community and around the state and the country who have benefited from animal therapy in many ways. I have seen these animals and actions in school settings, college settings after traumatic incidents, helping families deal with grief and loss, and also just everyday help that these animals can provide to people. And they also happen to be lovely. We have Lily here in attendance, and we got a little card of Lily with a few statistics. I particularly like that one of Lily's favorite activities is couch surfing. I think that's just great. So I just wanted to thank Paul for bringing this up. And I know I think the mayor is going to issue a proclamation as well, but it's something good that we can all celebrate. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: 24-075 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Resolution to discuss concerns dealing with the Bedford Water Department. to be resolved by the benefit City Council discuss concerns with the Medford Water Department. We did receive two communications from the administration and I'll go over to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: And I also have the message here. And I do want to note that. We did have some of this discussion last budget season. We voted down the retained earnings to make sure that that funding was going to address infrastructure needs. That was the 1st time in a long time that that had happened. But we do have this response from. Commissioner McGivern. It's dated April 11th. As you know, Dan Stone King, our former water superintendent, decided to leave the city of Medford for what he felt was a better opportunity. Dan was a valuable member of the DPW leadership team and contributed significant improvements to the water and sewer division. Dan's presentation of the state of the city's water system did not provide you with information on what steps and plans that the DPW with the support of the mayor have already taken to address our aging water system. His letter unfortunately only focused on issues he felt were not getting enough attention. It is worth balancing the minimal information he provided with a summary of actions that have taken place since I've been appointed leader of the DPW and before as city engineer. It is important to highlight that the City of Medford purchases water from the MWRA and was responsible for distributing it to the ratepayers through a system of pipes, valves and meters. As part of this distribution, we regularly provide water quality testing to demonstrate the safety of our distribution system. The latest published information on Medford's water quality can be found at the MWRA website linked below. This site is updated regularly with our testing information and ratepayers also receive a consumer confidence report from the MWRA in June that provides greater detail. The web address is www.mwra.com, annual, water report, 2022 results, pdf, medford.pdf. The city of Medford experienced a huge surge of roadway building and building development in the early part of the 20th century, so many of our water distribution pipes installed at that time were nearing the expected lifetime age of 75 to 100 years, with some lasting 120 years. Knowing this fact, we completed an evaluation of our utility assets in 2020 when I was city engineer. This study included, among other things, identifying the age, material, and quantity of our water distribution pipes based on the city's records. This allowed the DPW to understand the needs of our water system, and helped us identify steps to prepare for an increase in water main replacements throughout the city. When I became commissioner, we had recently suffered the loss of our longtime water superintendent, Dave Proctor, and I was tasked with finding a new person who could help us improve our water operations, assess our capital needs, and lead new initiatives to prepare for increasing our capacity to replace our aging water mains. Mr. Stone King helped the DPW prepare a strategy that started in the 2024 budget. The goal of the strategy is to increase in-house and contracted water main relay capacity and align the development of the DPW capital improvement project to the needs of the system. We met with Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn in April of 2023 to discuss the strategy and steps we believe needed to be addressed in the FY24 budget. This resulted in the mayor beginning to formulate a communication plan, which is under development, as well as additions to the water and sewer operating budget. These additions included a water supervisor position with an additional water quality coordinator and a deputy commissioner to oversee the operations of DPW. The water supervisor proposition is in front of you tonight to increase the compensation scale as it has been a significant challenge to attract a qualified candidate at the current scale. We also included a plan to engage a consultant to help us develop a long-term rate study and indirect cost study. We are currently working on these studies with Weston and Sampson. These studies are critical to inform important decisions the City of Medford will need to make in the coming years. The rate study will assess the needs of the system, contribute to the development of our capital project list, and identify rate and funding scenarios for a 10-year period. This information is critical to the long-term health and performance of our water distribution system. Both the utility asset evaluation as well as the long-term rate study are actions that the city had not done before, which presents its own unique challenge. We've also pursued initiatives that support these efforts, such as a hydraulic modeling of our entire system and developing a unidirectional regular flushing program. The hydraulic modeling will help identify the cause of pressure or flow issues within the system, so those issues can be incorporated into capital projects. There are also new initiatives related to our service lines, which are in response to new regulations that will go into effect later this year. One of these initiatives is a lead service ordinance, which you'll be hearing more about shortly. It's worth noting that this letter only summarizes the work taking place for us to prepare us for replacing our aging water infrastructure. We also have aging pavement infrastructure, which must be coordinated with the water infrastructure work. As you know, these infrastructure assets are not the only ones that need more attention in Medford. since proper asset management is costly over many years, it is critically important that we work together to evaluate, prepare, and execute projects as we march towards having systems and funding in place for long-term infrastructure performance. In closing, we certainly have a lot of work to do with our water system, but we are taking the proper steps to plan for increasing the length of water main we replace each year and increasing the water quality. This will take time, and effective partnerships between the mayor, city council, and DPW will be critical. That is Mr. McGivern's letter, and I will note that Mr. McGivern did answer many questions on this in the last budget, including the scope of the problem being $500 million to $1 billion long-term problem. So that was discussed a year ago in the budget season. I also met with Mr. Stone King and Mr. McGivern around the proposed lead service ordinance last year, and we had discussions along the lines, basically, of what Mr. McGivern just put out in this report. And I was also asking many of the same questions that Mr. McGivern was asking here, that Mr. Stoneking was asking in his letter of the mayor, which is, when are we going to know the scope and scale of this? And they said, basically, we need the long term rate study in place now that we have looked at the, we know what our assets are. There wasn't even an asset inventory in 2020. That exists now. we now we need the long term rate study to go back and say, this is what it's going to cost in the long term to rate payers to fix the system, which I think both in the last budget season and in that meeting that I had, they referred to as one of the three oldest systems in the state. So that is where we are at. And that is the letter from Mr. McGiven. If I can, Mr. President. Councilor Scarpelli, and then Councilor Callahan, and then Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We also had this from the director of communications. Steve Smurdy. Hello, Councilors. I want to provide some additional information regarding the city's ARPA allocations for water and sewer projects. Since the fall of 2021, the city has invested over 4 million in 13 projects that address critical water infrastructure needs. Among those projects are sewer system lining, sealing and testing, DPW water meter system replacement project, lead service line replacement rebate program, infiltration and inflow infiltration and inflow control plan, rights upon dam maintenance, Winthrop Street water main replacement. In addition to strengthening our water sewer system, the mayor has been working with City Engineer Wartella and DPW Commissioner McGibbon to address the over 100 million backlog in street repairs due to neglect over the past few decades by identifying projects that were close to beginning construction. The administration was able to deploy ARPA funding across multiple road infrastructure projects including patchwork on 34 streets identified in the pavement assessment, intersection improvements at Spring Street and Central Avenue, Pinker Street Roadway and utility construction. The mayor is also hoping to allocate $1 million in ARPA funding to continue the repair work of the city's sidewalks, as well as additional tree stump removals in 2024. You can read more about the work already done on sidewalks and stumps on the city website, and you can view a full list of projects, as well as a dive deeper into project descriptions by visiting the city website medfordma.org. slash department slash finance slash ARPA. Councilor Kelly.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to clarify one thing. The common practice, as far as I was aware, was that funds that were called retained earnings, which were surplus funds gathered by rate payers in the enterprise fund that funds water and sewer, that those funds were returned to rate payers to keep rates low. So it wasn't that they were in the general fund. It's that the council, the mayor requested, the mayor, excuse me, thank you. Thank you, please. I don't want to get into this again tonight. Thank you very much. The council, many mayors and many councils, mayors recommended, water and sewer commissions recommended, and councils voted to return retained earnings to taxpayers on the orders of hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars every year. And those are funds that could have gone to maintenance of the system. Vice President, that's just the facts, thank you. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Please don't shout from the crowd. Thank you. Please don't shout from the crowd. Thank you. Please don't shout from the crowd. Thank you. Please don't shout from the crowd. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: No, you shouldn't be shouting from the crowd. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the Council? Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng any further comments from members of the council. Seeing none of their emotion on the floor. Vice President Collins, Councilor Scarpelli. Motion to receive and place on file by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins. Is there any public participation on the matter? I see one hand on Zoom and one person in the chamber. We'll go to the chamber first. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Go to Maureen on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. Maureen.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Maureen.
[Zac Bears]: If you email it to me, I can probably put it up.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, I can't speak to the filters. The MWRA tests the water. They determine that it's safe.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment? Mr. Castagnetti, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Between 75 and 120 are many of the water pipes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins, to receive and place on file. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in affirmative, none in the negative, motion passes. President Bears? 24-076 offered by Councilor Sperpelli. President Bears? Yes, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, public participation on the motion of Vice President Collins to take public participation, seconded by? Councilor Saing, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes 74. Another negative motion passes public participation. We received two public comment emails and I'm also vice president Collins. If you have someone who'd like to speak in public participation.
[Zac Bears]: Welcome.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. If I can, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: And just for folks watching and to note once again what Judge Kavanaugh was saying, we did dedicate and commemorate our last meeting in honor of Jack McGlynn and his service in the Ghost Army, which as folks can look up online, was made up of a few thousand folks who looked like 50,000 and made the German Nazi armies. think that there were mass mobilizations in one place or the other, but they had tanks, blow up tanks, and there was a signal core sending false radio transmissions. It's impressive. And I'll just reiterate my favorite anecdote from that was when Mayor Mike McGlynn, Jack McGlynn's son, got a call from a newspaper after some documents had been declassified in the 1990s. And he called his dad and he said, dad, what's this ghost army that they called about? The newspaper's calling, he said, who called you about that? He wanted to call the Pentagon and make sure that there hadn't been a leak of classified information. He hadn't told his own son 50 years later. And I think that speaks to the humility of that role. And they were honored with the, excuse me, they were honored with the Congressional Gold Medal, that entire unit, all the units. Public participation, is there anyone else who would like to participate for public participation in the chambers? Just in general, there is, of course, participation on the additional items on the agenda. Seeing none of the chambers, we do have one on Zoom. I see a hand, Bill Giglio. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know why, but I do know that under the city's rules, any reopenings within five years of a repaving require curb-to-curb repaving. So if you want to email me, let me know where that's being temporarily patched. I can let you know when their plans are to do a full curb-to-curb repaving, because that is the city rule on that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I appreciate that. And I know that members of the committee did speak to the chief after, you know, one of the public participation rules, the most recent Supreme Judicial Court ruling is that we cannot prevent anyone from, we cannot regulate the content of any public participation. So people are able to say whatever they think, other than they can't be swearing or, you know, being vulgar. But other than that, We can't regulate the content of what anyone's saying, so while I understand the frustration when public comments may not be what folks want to hear, and I understand the Chief's frustration at public comments that he did not want to hear, the Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that people can say what they want to say, and the only rules that we can set are around how long folks have to speak and when they can speak.
[Zac Bears]: Any further public participation before we resume the agenda? We did have two public comment emails. Is there a motion on the public comment emails to enter them into the record?
[Zac Bears]: on the motion of Councilor Collins to enter public comment emails into the record, seconded by Councilor Callaghan. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean from another negative. Those emails will be included as part of the official record of the meeting. 24-076 be resolved by the city council that we requested the city administration provide a full report involving the use of taxpayer dollars being used to fund lawsuit settlements and investigations with city of Medford, active and past employees. Be it further resolved that the city council moved to executive session if needed to discuss sensitive funding information. Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I'm going to go to Vice President Collins, but first I just want to say a couple things. Last year the budget fiscal 24 budget new growth was 2.5 million. And we did receive in the budget, we have meetings on the three departments tomorrow in committee of the whole, we did receive a quarter one quarter two budget to actuals document. from the administration. The law department spending as of December 31st was $172,000 out of a budget of $552,000. So only families spent 31% of their budget, 50% of the way through the year. Vice President Collins. Thank you, President Bears. I appreciate that.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins Council. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Any comments from members of the public? Seeing none, is there a motion? Oh, sure. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: I will just note that we've had many of these discussions the last two before the last two meetings.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion on the topic of the lawsuit settlements and investigations?
[Zac Bears]: So motion to refer the paper to the mayor, requesting answers to the questions and an executive session, please.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callahan. We'll go to public participation. Mr. Orlando, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We have a question from our hand raised on Zoom. Maureen, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will just note that, you know, for example, we may be managing Zoom. I often take notes and bring up reference documents. Councilor Scarpelli brings up things on his phone, researches things on his phone. They're often tools to enhance our participation in the meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. It's certainly not. Any further comment on this paper. Seeing none on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to refer the paper to the mayor requesting answers to the questions and an executive session seconded by Councilor Callahan. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, more than negative. The motion passes. 24-077 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Resolution to discuss. Yes, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion to join papers 24-077 and 24-081 by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven in the affirmative. None of the negative emotion passes 24-07. Can I read them both? Sure, sure. Thank you. 24-077 by Councilor Scarpelli be resolved that the City Council discussed the possible harmful materials being stored on the MBTA commuter railway that abuts residential homes, most notably the creosote railroad ties and 24-081. Council President provided verbal update on efforts by Council leadership, the mayor, city staff, representative Garmelie and local residents to remove creosote Soak Railroad ties that are an environmental and health hazard along the MBTA lower line, be it further resolved that the council request immediate action by the MBTA to remove these ties from residential areas and forward a copy of this resolution by email to our state delegation. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli I appreciate that I can just give a brief update. There's been an issue ongoing for over two months now, especially behind Tyler app but along the lower line commuter rail where railroad ties soaked increase so which is a pretty toxic flammable material have been being placed within 50 feet of homes, you know, right in a residential neighborhood, some of them nearby to a daycare in February. And this is part of a program to replace the rail lines. You know, they have to do it for safety purposes, but. In February, there was the first time these were placed there and I was just able to successfully work with Director Blake and some other folks to get the MBTA to move the ties up the line into Winchester, where they're in near the forest, you know in the DCR forest area rather than right abutting residential homes. And then a couple weeks ago, maybe five times as many ties came and replaced right on Tyler Avenue along the MBTA railroad line. The mayor has made direct requests director Blake from traffic and transportation has made requests. We've been working with director with representative Garber Lee. Residents have been reaching out, residents have engaged the Mass Department of Environmental Protection, and there's probably a couple hundred, 200 email chain at this point, going back and forth between dozens of people trying to get the MBTA to do this. And the MBTA has basically said, no, we have to replace the ties, prove that this is toxic. So it has been a frustrating. Again, just last week, we were out trying to get them to do something, been talking to Representative Garbally, and he's been basically getting a stonewall as well. So we are continuing to try. The MBTA has invoked a couple of things. They basically said, if you want to prove it's toxic, call the EPA. And then they've also said, we'll bring in the Federal Railroad Administration if we have to bring in the federal, because it's federal rails, we have to replace the rails. So they are not responding in the way that you would hope of a partner in government on this issue, but we have had a lot of people working on this, and I'll continue to keep working on it as best as I can. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'm certainly amenable to the amendment and did request that from the MBTA and they did not provide the document. So that's an amendment from Councilor Tseng to request the materials Could you, the safety data sheet? Yeah, that's right.
[Zac Bears]: Great, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by, and myself as amended by Councilor Tseng, as seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, any discussion by members of the public in person or on Zoom? Seeing none in person, we'll go to Bill Giglio on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, as far as I'm aware, the Board of Health has been engaged as well in Medford, and they have sent a number of comments along. They've requested action by the Mass. Department of Environmental Protection, and the MBTA's response has essentially been that, according to them, they don't have any proof that it's not safe and that this is a project required by the Federal Railroad Administration. And that's essentially been their response. I mean, they have... To give them some credit, they have responded to the emails. Beyond that, the responses have not really been sufficient.
[Zac Bears]: We don't have any authority to order them to stop work.
[Zac Bears]: Right, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, much appreciated. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. You already read it, right? Yeah. A resident sent around some EPA regulations around creosote. And then they said, well, these are creosote soap ties. So it's a different, you know, I mean, it's just kind of a run around. Yeah, they haven't burned. So if you go down to the neighborhood, I'm not going down there. It's it's a brutal smell. I mean, it's persistent and pervasive. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Oh, Any further discussion by members of the public on this item? One more. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: It's baffling. We sent all the same information over and they said we have to get the project done. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Just thinking out loud. We've we've asked for a number that was Andrew Castagnetti, by the way. We've asked for a number of solutions, moving them, storing them differently. They're pretty solid. They're locked into their position. Any further discussion? On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli and myself, as amended by Councilor Tseng, as seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative, none of the negative, the motion passes. 24-078 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the City Council discuss the Mayor's request in hiring an outside consultant to review Medford Fire Department policies and procedures with additional cost to the taxpayers of Medford. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Well, I don't know if anyone's noticed, but given that we are having a relatively short night. I haven't been putting the timer on. God, you haven't put up the buzzer. I haven't put up the timer. That's pretty good. It's because it's supposed to manage when we need to manage time, and we've been good tonight about managing our time. I do want to note one thing, which is when we received that email, I did request, ask the question of the mayor about whether there'll be a public report, and specifically with regards to how the council can be a collaborative part of strategic planning. And she said, yes, there'll be a public report, and we'll be provided with the report and recommendations. Before we go to members of the Fire Union, I do want to see if there's any further comment by members of the Council. Seeing none, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any questions for members of the council? I have two, if no one else has any. Number one, you mentioned a grant councilor Scarpelli, do you guys want to talk about that at all? That's good news, can I?
[Zac Bears]: So that would get us from 111 to 122.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, 15 plus, so 20, 106 plus 20. Yes, because we have five being hired. So now it's 106 plus 16.
[Zac Bears]: Just so I can get the numbers straight. It sounds to me like this FEMA grant based on the National Fire Protection Standards would be, they want us at 132 firefighters.
[Zac Bears]: And that would be like the overshooting if we were shooting for 132. we're budgeted for 122, we only have 106. We're bringing on five, which gets us to 111. And she went for another 11, which just brings us to 122, which we're already budgeted for. So this would just be basically using federal money to pay for something we're already budgeting for, not trying to use it to go above the 122. And that's because the concern is that after three years, how do you pay for over 122? Yes. Okay. Yeah, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: It's not as complicated as how they funded walking court. Let me tell you that.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to clarify along those lines when you say we submitted is that the union has submitted or the union work with the chief to submit or the union staff wrote it and the chief submitted I just fired apart the whole fire staff with the exception of the chief is part of the union but we had like firefighters that worked on duty during the day.
[Zac Bears]: Great, and it's on behalf of the fire department.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'll take it.
[Zac Bears]: We'll send you our budget ordinance too.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments?
[Zac Bears]: Mandatory overtime.
[Zac Bears]: After the next five coming through, is there any more pipeline updates that you've received?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. All right. Any further discussion? We do have one person on Zoom. I'll go to Maureen on Zoom. Name and address for the record please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Maureen. There are a number of people on the city staff who look at different grants. We have a CDBG, which is Community Development Block Grant, and other grants manager in the planning department. There's a federal funds manager in the finance department. And the city actually has been historically very successful at bringing in outside grant funding. And I super appreciate hearing. It's a testament what you just said. You've been successful in the past. You're hoping to be successful again. Oftentimes, departments are looking for grants in their specific fields. Chief Buckley's been up here before from the police department talking about grants that people on his team have looked at. But, you know, in general, these grants are for specific purposes and are meant for specific projects, not to supplement the city's need for operating funds. So that's one of the major issues. I think that sounds like one of the issues you ran into here is that, you know, this grant is ideally to go beyond what the city is doing on operating funds. So it's while the city has brought in a lot of grants, and if you go to the city finance department page and you look at what's called the ACFR, comprehensive financial report. You can see there's a line in there and you and in some years, the city's brought in as many as 10 million 15 million in grants, but they're generally one off like the 2 million brought in for the car park project or, you know, money brought in to hire specific staff for specific studies or specific times and not to supplement. the general fund budget. The only money that comes to us to supplement the general fund budget is from the state Chapter 90 program, the UGA, which is the worst name, Unrestricted General Government Aid, and Chapter 70 school funding, which are generally the only thing out there where we as a city get money to fund the general fund that doesn't come from local taxes and fees.
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate it. Hopefully, we can actually solve this. Any further comments, questions on the paper before us? Mr. Jones.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, I think, sorry, and I'll go to Councilor Kiley. I think we're almost around the horseshoe here to the point that I think I'll speak for myself and for no one else. One of the reasons I ran for office here is because this city makes penny wise pound foolish decisions all the time because there's not enough money. And that's where we come around, right? we don't wanna submit 126, because then we might have to pay for four in three years. Even though we get three years of money, we're worried about paying for four, three years from now, because we don't have the money to pay for the four, three years from now. And that's the larger question here, right? Like we can write grants, we can try to bring in more money, we can do these questions, but if we're constantly in the position of, and that's like saying, we've all talked about here tonight, that's if it doesn't go down more. We're hoping that we'll stay at 122 for three years, because at least then we won't be more penalized. And that's where my frustration really comes in, in the long run. I can understand both positions, because the city has never raised more. The city's never, since 2 and 1 half in 1980 said, when I believe when we've talked about there were 150 firefighters back then, and now we're down to 140, 130, now we're down to 122. There's nothing in the last 40 years of city government evidence that the city's gonna say, okay, we're gonna bring the money back to go back to at least 126 or 132. So the mayor says, oh, well, and I mean, it comes down to this too, right? It sounds to me like that's not gonna be the, even if we do go back and ask for more, that's not gonna be the first thing we go back and ask for. So we're not gonna put in the grant and then we're never gonna get the grant, right? I don't think he'll be saying anything to say that we've disagreed on things, you and I, Mr. Jones here. People usually do. And when we usually do, and I disagree with all of my fellow councillors sometimes and members of the public, but this is where all of this stuff comes back to the core of it. financial mismanagement you're right well well it's it's we can say it's if you want to call financial mismanagement then it's 40 years of financial mismanagement and and a set of bad practices that this administration the previous administration and the administration before it held and i'm willing to i'm willing to to go down for that one you know but it's a it's a lack of imagination and understanding and and going and saying we need more money than we're raising. If we're never going to raise it, then we're never going to invest. And then you're stuck in these positions where it's actually cheaper to put $10,000 outside than bring someone inside or do the $122,000 than the $126,000. And now I've gone on too long from the chair and probably said too much of an opinion from the chair, so I'm going to stop. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. We appreciate the time in the effort as always, and I think, you know, just to echo what Councilor Callahan said. We have so much work to do, and when we are taking our time and our energy at cross purposes rather than in the same direction, that's a disservice to getting the work done. So I think, you know, we can agree to disagree, but if we're moving in the same direction, and I appreciate that that is happening, that many of us are trying to do that, and if we could all do it better, we'd be in a much better position. So thank you for your work.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, let me just get that down. Motion to request answer from mayor on FEMA grant being submitted for 11 firefighters instead of 15 firefighters. Correct.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know why she wouldn't do the four unless she has a secret she's not telling us. All right, so on the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Madam Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes 70 from him. The negative motion passes 24-079 resolution request update on the crystal Campbell Peace Garden. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to refer the paper to the DPW Commissioner, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Callahan, Councilor Saint.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro to refer to the DPW Commissioner. Any further comment? Any comment by members of the public? Mr. Casta, any name and address for the record, please?
[Zac Bears]: You need to buy me one of those.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Sarpelli to refer, Mr. Leonard, do you want to jump in on this one?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callaghan, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, to refer to DPW. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seventy per minute on the negative motion passes. 24-080, Personnel Ordinance Amendment, Supervisor of Water and Sewer, to Honorable President and Members of the Medford City Council. Dear Mr. President and Councilors, I respectfully request and recommend the City Council approve the following amendment. The revised ordinance is Chapter 66, entitled Personnel, Article 2, entitled Reserved. the city's classification and compensation plan, formally included as Article 2, Section 6631 to 6640, by adopting the following language. The language of PW 18 shall be amended to remove the following position, and the language of PW 19 be amended to include the following position. Supervisor of Water and Sewer, the city has had this position posted at PW 18 for months and has not received any qualified applications. This proposed classification change would not require a supplemental appropriation. Respectfully submitted. This is a proposal to move the supervisor of water and sewer position from PW 18 in the city's compensation plan to PW 19. The justification is that this position has been posted since the beginning of this position was included in the fiscal 24 budget and posted for months and there have not been qualified applicants. And as noted, this would not require supplemental appropriation. Is there any discussion on the paper? Vice President Collins to present. I'll go to Vice President Collins and Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: The motion of Councilor Collins to approve the first reading seconded by Councilor Callahan. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry. So I, since there were too much on the floor, I wanted to give enough time for you to kind of just suss out if there was a compromise motion here, given that there isn't a compromise motion, there's a motion of the table on the floor that is undebatable and takes precedence. So I want to cut debate off at this point. On the motion of the table of Councilor Scarpelli, is there a second? A second by Councilor Callahan. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Let me tell you something. If you say yes, I'm getting dinner by 50 people. No, but that's because we can keep talking about it. So let's keep going. The motion fails. Three affirmative, four negative. Motion fails. Councilor Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: No, I hear you and I just wanted I just didn't motion to table is a tough instrument that this allows debate but I so I had to handle it procedurally. My, it sounds like I'm the swing on this. My personal preference would be, given the fact that there's not a representative of the administration here tonight to answer our questions, that we request a representative of the administration to appear at our next meeting with the answer to this question. So that's just my personal preference. You know, I would tend to agree with you, Councilor Collins. I don't know that there's a way to, it sounds like there's general agreement that we would advance this pending the answer to that question.
[Zac Bears]: Is there a motion on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, motion to, maybe we can get the answer in advance. Yeah, so motion to request an answer on the question, on Councilor Scarpelli's question about voting on this while the position is in arbitration and request representative administration at the next meeting and put this on the table for April 30th.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, yes.
[Zac Bears]: So on the motion of Councilor Tseng to, um, request a response from Council on on the question about this position being an arbitration, and if that impacts our vote. Seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan. Madam Clerk, please
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. The request is made to the administration for an answer to the question and presence at our next meeting, and the item is tabled until our April 30th meeting. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Motion by Vice President Collins to take paper 21057 off the table and approve for third reading. Seconded by.
[Zac Bears]: Leaf floor ordinance is eligible for third reading. And the motion of Councilor Collins to take it off the table and approve for third reading. Seconded by.
[Zac Bears]: It's not eligible till next month. Oh, sorry. You're good. uh, on that motion of Council Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng to take from third from the table and approve for third reading. Any discussion? Any discussion in the chambers or on zoom by members of the public? I see a hand raised. I will go to Norman Kaplan. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: just procedure, Norman, where we are at, uh, the language as amended and approved for first reading on March 12th was advertised in the local newspaper on April 4th, and that was, uh, you know, that was, that is a legal requirement under mass general law that we, that we put the text of the ordinance as approved for first reading, um, out, uh, in the advertising. And now we would be approving for third reading. My understanding of the process is that if we were to amend that third reading, we would have to then start the process again, uh, reapprove it for first reading and re advertise it.
[Zac Bears]: That was advertised in the Medford transcript and Somerville Medford and Somerville transcript and journal, or what's left of it.
[Zac Bears]: So this vote would be a vote to put this in the ordinances and creating an ordinance and acting an ordinance. So this is the vote for enactment. I would then go to the mayor for her signature of veto and or neither. And if she signs it or does not veto it, then we would start the process of getting that up on the city's muni code website. at which point, at some point in the future, basically it'll go up as its own ordinance and then it will be codified in the city's code of ordinances online.
[Zac Bears]: The mayor could veto the ordinance which would return it to this council for further consideration. We could override her veto. We could amend the ordinance and begin the process again to go to first reading and then an advertisement and then the third reading again.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it would be so it would probably be back to us. mid-May and then have to go out again for another month, so probably would be mid-June or July when it would be completed?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Kaplan. I appreciate your input and comments on the process. And certainly if the mayor were to come back to the council with suggestions, I'm sure that the council would consider them in good faith.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion. of Councilor Collins to approve her third reading as seconded by Councilor Saing. Any further comment from members of the public or members of the Council? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one of the negative. The motion passes and the ordinance is ordained. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins to take paper 17-606, 20-086, 22-007, 22-009, and 22-039. Second. And receive and place on file. Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one very much in the negative.
[Zac Bears]: If I may, the motion passes. I did receive a communication. One of the emailers in public comment did specifically ask me to read the email out loud. I'm going to read this email out loud. It is not my words, but it was a specific request. The subject is civility and professionalism in city council meetings. Dear President Vares, Vice President Collins, Councilor Callahan, Councilor Tseng, and Councilor Leming, I'm ready to express my appreciation for your amazing work as city councilors that represent the trust our electorate has placed in you. Your professionalism in handling the mob approach that a vocal minority who are attending some of the city council meetings is very deeply appreciated. Please keep up your excellent work. I would appreciate your reading my brief email out loud in the next council meeting. Sincerely, Munir Jumanis, PhD, physicist, educator. Thank you all.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: But thank you. Thank you. And I do want to thank Councilor Strudel for bringing up prior councils and behaviors and how I would note that everyone on this council has sat and listened to the public comment regardless of It's content. It doesn't mean we haven't responded in different ways. Some of the incidents referred to, I'll just say that some people were named and others were not when everyone reacted in the same way. And to be honest, I think there's a difference between a good faith misinterpretation of someone's tone and disrespect. So I just want to put that out there too. Sometimes I tell a joke and nobody laughs. Does that mean it was not a joke? No. So, and sometimes I'm not telling a joke and people laugh, and that's just because I'm very funny. But I'm going to go to the podium, Mr. Castagnetti, and then we can wrap up this shebang unless there's other councillors who want to speak.
[Zac Bears]: Well, you've made Sylvia happy, Councilor Callahan. Motion to adjourn, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli and I being a model for all marathon runners on the motion. to adjourn, 10-10, let's get Sylvia home, by Councilor Callaghan, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: President is thank you Assistant City Clerk to Placido for your service this evening. I vote yes. Six in the affirmative one present motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Planning and Permitting Committee, April 10th, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. For present one absent, the meeting is called to order. This meeting will take place at 6 p.m. City Council Chambers, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford MA, and via Zoom. To submit written comments, please email adamherdevese at medford-ma.gov. The action discussion item for today is 24.033, offered by President Bears and Vice President Collins, which is the zoning ordinance updates with the Innes Associates team. So welcome, everybody. This is our second, third, I can't even, a third meeting, I think so far on the zoning project. I am sitting in his chair today because we do not have Councilor Collins and Leming are on Zoom, so I'm chairing from the podium, but they are here. Via Zoom, we received a memorandum as requested from NS Associates around the zoning project that we are working on, which is our comprehensive zoning update to align our zoning ordinance with the comprehensive plan, climate action and adaptation plan, open space and bike plan, housing production plan, and did I forget any other plans? So all of those plans had gone through years of public process, public meetings, charretting, surveying of the public, and those plans can be found on the city website and at city hall. and that's also this is a follow-up to the 2020 to 2022 project that this council did to recodify the city's zoning ordinance for the first time in 60 years and create a more readable and accessible format. I think a quick summary before we dive into the memo and we have Paula from Innes Associates who's going to go through it. Um, but basically so far we have met in this committee, uh, after bringing on in this associates through a bid process last fall, we've met in this committee to discuss the outlines of our project. We've generally grouped, uh, we're going to group our zoning changes into three phases. Phase one are items that we can do between now and June 30th of 2024. And these are simpler changes, fixes, technical corrections. to the zoning ordinance recommendations from our planning staff, building commissioner and building department staff, the zoning board of appeals, community development board, to identify issues in the zoning and correct them. Phase two, which will be starting before June 30th, but probably won't be coming to the city council until after June 30th, are some potential changes that require more analysis or research. And then phase 3, which will begin in July, are changes driven by what's been accomplished in the first two phases, and that'll be continuing through the end of 2024, likely through June and even September of 2025. and we've identified 10 topic areas that we will be grouping these under, and they are climate resiliency, housing production, housing affordability, addressing our major squares, mixed-use corridors, streets and neighborhoods, economic development and business growth, the zoning map and zoning districts, zoning uses and dimensional requirements, and transportation and multimodal ways. So that is a general summary of how we got here, where we'll be going, and I will turn it over to Paula from Innes Associates, who can go through the memo that we received last week.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins, your hands raised on Zoom. Paula, you can keep going. We'll come back to Vice President Collins. Councilor Callahan, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: I think we should go through it and then, if that's OK, finish the memo and then jump back in. So we can go through the rest of the memo. I don't think you need to read everything, Paula, but just give us a general summary of each section and what it means, I think, should be sufficient for me.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Paula. I think this is a great roadmap getting us going. And I appreciate the comprehensive plan references in here, as well, as someone who wrote, I think, a nine-page comment on the draft comprehensive plan. I will turn over to Councilors for questions. I saw Councilor Callahan, and then I will jump back to Vice President Collins. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. I think the question is just under the site of interview topics that mentions Dover Municipal, Administrative, Minor, and Major. I can just quickly say that Dover Municipal is a Dover amendment uses, so exempt non-profits, Tufts University is our biggest one, who have different zoning requirements than most other owners of property as well as municipal uses. The rest of them, I think, maybe a little bit more subjective in terms of, or maybe up to us for how to define what is minor, what is major, and I'm not quite sure on administrative, so I will let Paula or we also have Director Hunt in the room. kind of try to define those a little further. And maybe the point of this is that we need to define them a little further.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, sure. Yeah. Thank you. I'll go to Director Hunt on that one as the new age running of all site plan review.
[Zac Bears]: The generals on the three three ish processes and then you can get we can get into the details but essentially uses can allow we can allow by the zoning property owners to do something by right which basically means they just have to get a building permit. It's by right they don't have to go through further process. We can do you know their site plan review for certain there's a threshold at which site plan review applies and there's this process. And then there's also things that are only allowed by special permit, which is. almost always include site plan review to my knowledge, but also there is a conditionality of yes or no or yes with conditions. So those are kind of the three big buckets. We can get into variances and appeals and zoning more about those, but I don't. So that's kind of the three things. And then these would be within that site plan review and it would apply both for that middle threshold and to then site plan review for special permits is my understanding.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, right now 94, 11.7 defined site plan review. Anything residential over six units, including conversions, non residential over 10,000 square feet or adding more than 10,000 square feet. Any parking lot, including municipal lots, not accessory to principle uses projects involving a change in principle use of a building containing more than 10,000 square feet. Any drive through restaurant. any eating place that's not a drive-through that's more than 5,000 square feet, medical offices over 10,000 square feet, gas stations, and any neighborhood and convenience retail sales.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further questions, Councilor Calhoun? Great. I will go to Councilor Leming and then Council Vice President Collins. If you have a question, just raise your hand. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Go to Director Hutt or Paula. How about a director hug?
[Zac Bears]: I think that just to add to Councilor Leming, the key three ones for some of the elements of this project that have been suggested are the inclusionary, the transportation, the TDM study, and then the linkage nexus. So wondering on those three.
[Zac Bears]: that helps. Great.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah, I think just, and I'll go back to Councilor Leming in just a second, but given the timelines that we're laying out here, if we're not relatively secure by early mid-fall on getting those studies funded and completed, then we're probably running out the clock, or at least going pretty late into next fall. So just want to flag that timeline.
[Zac Bears]: And maybe, can we look at Community One Stop, maybe? Yes. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna go back to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Is there a draft ordinance or is there just a draft language of some kind to be incorporated into this process? I'll go to Paula in a second. I know Councilor Leming has that Mystic Valley TDM group would be interested in that. So I'm going to go to Paul.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know if council, I mean, you want to clarify the proposal at all and then we can go to Paula.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Thank you, Councilor Leming, and I'll go to Paula to talk any more about this element of the zoning project.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you both. Any further questions by members of the council on this memo, Councilor Callahan?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I just want to add to, and I'm just going to share screen really quickly. You know, we had sent out the call for folks to send in various items to, so I think it was to Alicia and Kit to connect with Emily. And that was, you know, to inform this memo. So we have some of them in here in the status updates, but I think the idea is that if there is any, If there's anything like that, an idea, something you want to put on the table as a Councilor to put under a proposed change, submit that through the process, and Alicia and I can clarify exactly who it needs to go to. That'll get it added into this table. Eventually, a lot of the comp plan and other plan updates will be added into this table and we'll kind of have a running. You know, every couple meetings, we'll get a new memo like this that says, here's this change. Here's where the phase it's in. Here's the status update. You know, it's out to legal counsel or, you know, doing research or whatever it might be. We're waiting to hear back from lower mystic transportation Management Association. Um, so that is kind of the intent here. Um, so if there are items and then I will also work with chair Collins to make sure that anything that was in the governing agenda that was kind of around this project gets referred in here and put into this table as well. Um, this is this is pretty much a first draft and I will go to vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you, Vice President Collins. And, you know, I think just to echo that and add one thing, you know, if there are some of these buckets are going to be big and ideas are going to come up as we work through them. Some of them, I mean, if there's something really outside the box that we're definitely sure is going to need to get studied, I will say, knowing about that sooner than later, the more that I look through this, the more I'm like, oh, well, we have everything we're going to do with, you know, not necessarily in this list, but it feels like we're pretty booked up through September 2025. So that's, there's just a lot to do here and only so many funds and so much capacity. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Just want to go to the building commissioner who did submit some zoning change recommendations. Mr. Commissioner, if you want to go over any of the recommendations that you submitted to us for this meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. This is really helpful. And also, just in general, please let us know how we can best engage with you as we move through the process. We have, and this associates with the planning department, I'm sure that there's communication there that I don't know about among city staff, but if there's anything, any way that you wanna be involved in a different way than you are in this project, we really wanna engage the building department as kind of the front line of enforcing a lot of this zoning code and making sure that it is written in a way that can be interpreted by your team effectively.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. And Director, maybe we could consider, maybe we could just follow up with Councilor Collins offline about that question. All right, any questions from members of the Council on what came in through the Building Commissioner? Just a minute, yes, and we'll go to public participation once Councilors are done. Seeing no questions for the building commissioner, I just wanted to say one more thing, which was to ask Director Hunt, from the CD board and the ZBA chairs or members, what's our best way, or when do we expect that they might be able to engage in a similar process of sharing a list like what the building department was able to share?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and if you want to throw in as an example, just, I mean, I think, you know, as a starting point, this quick list from building, it's just a couple of pages, but it's also like 25 really good things. So quick and good is always, I think, helpful for all of us. Any further questions from members of the council? Seeing none, I will open us up for public participation, and you can come to the podium or raise your hand on zoom name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I could just say that for the scope of this project, and depending on what happens with the municipal uses and site plan review, like the public ways, when zoning doesn't apply to the public ways, the public ways are controlled by different state laws and ordinances. So this is mostly about regulations of private property through the zoning code. But I will defer to Director Hunt, who may have more knowledge than I do, generally does.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: I will see what we can do there with our software. We could probably at least include a link to MuniCode itself in general. They might have to go searching for their specific section, but say this is the zoning ordinance and then the plans as well.
[Zac Bears]: That's a great idea. I think we can throw that we might it might end up in the full text and description section rather than the attachment section because of how the software works. But yeah, that's perfect.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comments by members of the public? Raise your hands on zoom or run down to the city council chambers in the next two minutes and we'll recognize you. All right, seeing none, are there any motions on the floor? I actually have one that I would ask a colleague to make if they will, but any further, any comments before, comments or motions before that? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. And I just have two motions that I can't make as chair, so if anyone would like to make them for me, I'll just say what they are. Yeah, I'll do it. Thanks, Matt. It would just be the first motion would be to have the committee chair send around the request for input from members of the council for any policy items. Just send that around once again. And also, my second motion, and you can take it as one, whatever you want to do with it, Matt, would just be that we get an update from Planning and Development Sustainability by the end of June on the status of funding and procurement for the studies that we discussed today.
[Zac Bears]: If you want to amend that to May, that's fine with me.
[Zac Bears]: That sounds good to me. Councilor Luebing, how does that sound?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Okay. I'll jump in too, Paula.
[Zac Bears]: Just a clarification on my end at least, I think it would be great if these studies were like in the same section, but maybe had their own table because I think there's an extra level of, you know, work we're going to need to do in terms of securing funding and etc. and work that's already being done by staff on that front.
[Zac Bears]: There's no time anymore. It's just going to be adding it to the memo in perpetuity. On the motion of Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callaghan. When you're ready, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. We're in the affirmative, none of the negative, one absent. The motion passes. Any further discussion or motions on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, for the negative one absent, the motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you everybody.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council, seventh regular meeting, April 2, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Councilor Sanders. Present. 7 present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. Thank you all. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records. 24-062 offered by President Bears. Is there a motion to join with 24-070 by Councilor Scarpelli? On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favour?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. This is 24-062 be it resolved. by the Medford City Council that we honor and commemorate the dedicated service of former Medford Mayor and State Representative John J. Jack McGlynn and the United States Army and the 3132 Signal Service Company, part of the World War II Ghost Army, upon posthumous receipt of the Congressional Gold Medal on March 21st. Be it further resolved that we dedicate this meeting in honor of all of those who served in the Ghost Army to defend democracy, the people of the United States, and all humankind. And we have 24070. by Councilor Scarpelli, be it resolved that the Medford City Council recognize and thank former Mayor Jack McGlynn for his service to our great country, and finally being recognized for his heroism in being awarded the Congressional Gold Medal for his service as a member of the Secret Ghost Army during World War II. I'll be brief and I'll turn it over to Councilor Scarpelli, but my favorite anecdote in the news stories that have come out about this was former Mayor Mike McGlynn talking about how he got a phone call when he was mayor from a news source in the 90s, and it was about, they were saying, oh, well, we've learned about the Ghost Army, we learned your father, former Mayor Jack McGlynn, was in the Ghost Army, and he called his dad, and his dad's response was, who told you that? I need to track that down, because it was that much of a secret, and even 50 years later, he wanted to know how that information had gotten out there, and I think that just shows the dedication and service that he gave to the city and the country. And with that, I'll turn it over to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further comment? And if you don't know about the Ghost Army, I really recommend taking a look. There's been some really great articles, NPR, a few other ones that are free, no paywall. There's about 2,000 people who, with signals intelligence and inflatable tanks, tricked the Nazis into thinking they were 50,000 people and saved a lot of lives while doing it. Any public comment? Mr. Castagnetti? Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion by myself and Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. 24063, offered by Vice President Collins and Councilor Tseng, be it resolved that the Medford City Council recognize the holy month of Ramadan and wish a happy Ramadan and an easy fast to all who observe. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Saing and Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Callaghan, any further discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. Records. The records of the meeting of March 19th, 2024 were passed to Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli, how did you find those records? Councilor Scarpelli found the records in order and moves approval, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Reports of committees. 24045, committee of the whole report, March 19th, 2024. This was our final meeting on budget recommendations, which were submitted to the mayor. We have received an informal acknowledgement of receipt and expect a formal response. We also expect budget meetings to begin in the middle of this month. I think April 17th will be our first meeting. So that is an improvement. We should have by then, not only warrant articles, but also quarter one, two, and three budget to actuals and revenue projections for fiscal year 25. On the motion to approve by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. On 2020 offered by President Bears committee, the whole report to follow food trucks. We had another confusing meeting on food trucks on March 20th 2024. I think we managed to land at the end with a decent understanding of what legal authority applies to food trucks on what properties, but there's going to be further discussion on this matter. Is there a motion to approve or any further discussion on the report? On the motion approved by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. 24-056 and 24-057, Administration and Finance Committee report, March 26, 2024. This was on ordinance language updates to the linkage fee that was reported out of committee and is on the agenda for the Council tonight to refer to the Community Development Board. to initiate the zoning amendment process. Any further discussion? Is there a motion to approve? On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. to 3-474 governance committee report, March 26th, 2024. Councilor Tseng is the chair of that committee.
[Zac Bears]: And this is more of a post-election internal report All right. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve the committee report, any further discussion? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 23-427 and 24-008, Planning and Permitting Committee Report, March 27th, 2024. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Leming. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 23-319, Raisin Cane hearings. 23-319, Raisin Cane, 760 Fellsway. that we have a special permit for on additional on premises signage. We had a public hearing at our meeting on March 19th, which was continued to today, April 2nd. And that is on signage for raising canes. I will go to Councilor Scarpelli, chair of the Subcommittee on Licensing, Permitting and Signs, and then we will hear from the petitioner, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Kathy, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Cathy. Any questions or comments by members of the Council? Seeing none, I'm going to reopen the public hearing to anyone who would like to speak in favor, in opposition, or otherwise has a comment on this matter. The public hearing is reopened. Would you like to speak in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the public on the special permit for additional on-premises signage for raising canes, you can come to the podium or you can raise your hand on Zoom. Let me give it just another minute here. name and address for the record please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes, this is just about the signs and we did the special permit on other items already, but I do believe Raising Cane's is making improvements at the lot area. Kathy, if you want to speak on it.
[Zac Bears]: I believe there were new paint marks as well were?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment on the special permit for signage for Raisin Canes? Seeing none in the chamber and none on Zoom, I'm declaring the public hearing closed. Are there any motions?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Scarpelli on the motion to approve the special permit for additional on premises signage for Raising Cane seconded by Vice President Collins, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none negative. The motion is approved. 24-056 offered by Councilor Leming. Resolution to bring linkage pre-ordinance in compliance with the State Act establishing the ordinance. Is there a motion to waive the reading in favour of a summary by the chair? motion the motion by Council I mean to waive the reading in favor of summary by the chair seconded by Councilor Callahan all those in favor. Opposed motion passes. So we did discuss this in our administration and Finance Committee meeting last week, and essentially what was referred out of committee. is a number of technical amendments. There are some errors in the linkage fee ordinance referring to different trust funds and sending money to all of the money right now, technically, by ordinance is going to the parks fund, even if it's money for the water sewer system or schools or whatever else it may be. And then also adding a bucket for affordable housing, which is authorized by the a special act of 1989, but was never passed into ordinance in 1990. So the process from here on out is there will be a referral to the Community Development Board. The Community Development Board will hold a public hearing. They will issue comments and recommendations to the council. The council will then hold a public hearing considering those recommendations. And then there would be a final vote on the amended linkage fee zoning ordinance at that point. Any further discussion by members of the council or any motions on the floor? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to refer to the Community Development Board, seconded by Councilor Leming. Any further discussion? Any discussion by members of the public? If you're on Zoom, you can raise your hand. Seeing none, on the motion of Council Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative. None the negative. The motion passes and the item is referred to the Community Development Board. Vice President Collins can ask you to take the chair. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, having spoken with not just the planning department, but also code enforcement, building inspectors, et cetera, And also, this is a policy that's in effect in Boston, Worcester, other communities around the city, around the state. There's a huge issue with being able to identify what's an owner-occupied home, what is a rental unit, what's an illegal rental unit, and this would go a long way. I think I was listening to Councilor Tseng talk a bit about this. Building code, health and safety, you know, there's a lot of difficulty with reaching out. We send it out in the tax bill, absentee landlord, absentee property owner, maybe they never open the envelope and maybe they never see it, right? So there's a number of things when it comes to quality of life here in a community where this would be a huge benefit for the city to be able to identify this and I think the good and important thing to recognize is that most of the people who are renting property owners or renting properties in the city are the right thing, following the rules, you know, and this is a way for the city to provide access to the different programs and benefits available and be in contact. And then for the folks who are problem properties, and we know of them, and we know many of them are in the hillside neighborhood and over-renting to tough students, and we have overgrowth, and we've had petitions coming in here before, this is a way for the city to actually keep track of that. And that's been a huge note from code enforcement and building, is that It's just hard to say, here's the file on this property. And this property may be violating snow and ice removal. They may have overgrowth under the street. They may have trash on the property. They may have noise nuisance complaints. They may have a whole plethora list of things. But because there's no registry, there's nothing to attach any of that to. And they get away with it. So this really is a way for us to have that list, know what's going on in the city, and make sure that while most folks are doing the right thing, address the issues with those who are not. And I think that's something that all of us can acknowledge is an issue that we all experience here in Medford. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I would just note that the departments themselves have requested it and it's part of the city's comprehensive plan. It is true. Thank you. I'm not going to engage. Seriously, my role is to just state facts. Okay, please stop. Please stop. Thank you. You have to be silent. Thank you. Any further comments by members of the council? Seeing none, name and address for the record, please, for public participation.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. If they don't pay, then they are contacted.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, as was as was noted, and please do not if you're going to shout, I'm going to ask you to leave. Thank you people. I just want to if you I can answer your question, which is that the people who are responsible for enforcing the building code have said that this would make their jobs easier.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, the people who work in the building department, the building commissioners. Are they here? It was just mentioned. Well, we're not, we haven't had them, we're just referring to the committee. So we're going to have the discussion as members of the public have noted, we're going to have a long discussion just on this topic so that everyone can have their points concerned, so that points like Councilor Scarpelli's can be raised and so that we can craft an ordinance that works for the community.
[Zac Bears]: We're going, okay, I don't think we need to be verifying anything. We're gonna have a discussion.
[Zac Bears]: I have, and I'm disappointed. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Just a reminder that the disruption does take away from the speaker's time.
[Zac Bears]: That's not a municipal election, that's a state primary.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not going to engage in the back and forth, but as I noted, this is in the city's comprehensive plan and was requested by several departments in the city as a way to... Okay, well, I'd like to know who they are. I just told you it's the building department and the planning department. I don't believe you, to be honest with you. Okay, well, I'm sorry that you don't believe it. You can continue your comment, but I'm not going to engage in the back and forth.
[Zac Bears]: No, you're here to make comments and we will hear them.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Zoom with Kayla Lazzaro. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: No, sorry. I'm going to Zoom. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Please direct your comments to the chair. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Please direct your comments to the chair.
[Zac Bears]: You have one minute.
[Zac Bears]: I didn't quite say that. I said we know that there's a small percentage of people who are problem landlords, but code enforcement has said because there's no registry, it can be difficult to track them down and we are well aware that there are a lot of corporate owners using shell corporations and they're almost impossible for the city to get in touch with. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and I will note we do have a business license program. All businesses are licensed, and this council on multiple budgets has requested additional funding for code enforcement, including in the most recent budget. We currently only have two code enforcement officers.
[Zac Bears]: We're doing that. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: There's nothing in the ordinance that would suggest that whatsoever.
[Zac Bears]: I would just note again that this doesn't say anything like that.
[Zac Bears]: This doesn't say anything.
[Zac Bears]: I have said point Councilor Scarpelli. I have the authority to respond with facts. These are not factual facts. You would please tell me where this says that we're going to discriminate ethnically against.
[Zac Bears]: What's
[Zac Bears]: So let me just... All right, if we're gonna shout again, I'm gonna ask you to leave.
[Zac Bears]: You have 30 seconds, you have 15 seconds actually.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Penta.
[Zac Bears]: I am not through yet. Your time is up. Mr. Penta, please step away from the podium. I'm not going to call the police on you. Well, you should be respectful.
[Zac Bears]: I'll wait, thank you. Thank you very much for waiting. No, we're not gonna hear from you, but I'll wait for you to step away, thank you. Okay, we're gonna go to Jess Healy on Zoom. Jess, you have five minutes. Jess, you have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Jess. You can go, you have five minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I don't understand that. That's a rhetorical question. The city council salary has not increased since 2012. That's a rhetorical question. But it's incorrect. The city council salary has not increased since 2016.
[Zac Bears]: Our salary has not increased, and we are meeting more than ever.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes. There's no one on Zoom right now, but.
[Zac Bears]: No hands on Zoom, go to the podium, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: No, you can speak to me.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Ms. Diaz. I'm going to go to Jennifer Fiore on Zoom. Give me one second here. Name and address for the record. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: One second point of information.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes. Yeah, I think... Please respect the meeting, respect this person's time.
[Zac Bears]: Tony Tanks on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes. Tony, I requested to unmute you. You have to accept my request. Thank you. Can you hear me?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes, sometimes the facts are the facts. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion? Anyone want to go? Go ahead. Name and address the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, John. Would anyone else like to speak who hasn't spoken yet? Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Please direct your comments to the chair.
[Zac Bears]: People saying you this you that. Please direct your comments.
[Zac Bears]: Five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You can speak to me and if you have comments, she'll hear them.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Nick, name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes. Nick, I've requested to unmute you. You have to accept.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All I can offer you is that you can email me and I'll set up a conversation with you and we connect you with the city to see what resources the city can provide. Gonna go to Mr. Cassidy then Jessica Healy Mr. Cassidy you have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. We definitely have had a lot of conversations about owner-occupied. I think you'd actually find that if we were to implement it, it would increase, it shifts the burden within the property tax levy. It would actually increase the taxes on a lot of small multifamily homes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to Jessica Healy on Zoom. name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Many of the policies we've been discussing are part of the city's comprehensive plan, climate plan, and housing plan, which are available on the city website, and they include recommendations for council action. This is one of them.
[Zac Bears]: And comprehensive plan as well, the citywide comprehensive.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I would just, the clerk has noted to me that Massachusetts general does not require public body, step public participation. It is something that we choose to do. All right. Name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to Maureen on Zoom for five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Maureen. Maureen, can we get your name and address for the record?
[Zac Bears]: get your name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comment on this agenda item? Seeing none, is there a motion on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of councilor second refers the committee on planning and permitting seconded by seconded by council vice president cons Councilor Leming just Councilor Leming
[Zac Bears]: I am the council president. Thank you. Do you have any more to say, Matt? No. Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: after all the committee meetings.
[Zac Bears]: Leaf blower was five, budget was seven.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. So we're at about two minutes left. It's by the City Council rules. There's 15 minutes to debate the call for the previous question of Councilor Tseng, and the discussion remains to Councilors only. So we have one minute left on that. Are there any other Councilors who'd like to speak? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins, thank you. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I think that's- I think Councilor Collins, you have about 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to call the previous question and debate and move to a final vote, seconded by Council Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. This is to end debate for previous question.
[Zac Bears]: It's the rule. He called the question and that were initiates a period of 15 minutes of debate among the council, after which by majority vote, we will move to a final vote.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, two in the negative. We've called the question on the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve, seconded by, to send to the Planning and Permitting Committee, seconded by Council Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Actually, I don't have to call the roll. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Yes, I believe Councilors are, Councilor Scarpelli said that they were opposed. 24-060 offered by Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming, and Councilor Tseng. Resolution to amend the City Council rules. Be it resolved that rule 16 of the rules of the Medford City Council be amended to state the following. I'm gonna read the existing rule, and then I'm going to read the proposed rule. The existing rule is public participation. Any resident, petitioner, or interested party Please take your conversations outside. Thank you. Please take your conversations outside. Thank you. The existing rule 16 is any resident petitioner interested party shall be able to speak on any item included on the agenda once for no more than five minutes, all petitions filed by members of the public shall either be sponsored by a member or reviewed by the city clerk and Council President prior to prior to placement on the agenda, any resident participating in person may provide their residential address to the city messenger If any resident participating virtually may provide their residential address to the city clerk prior to speaking and the address shall not be included in the council records. A six calendar day public comment period shall commence upon the consideration of any petition as defined in rule 19 public comments shall be submitted in writing to the city clerk the council can waive this requirement by majority vote. And this would be replaced to state the following any resident or interested party shall be able to speak on any item included on the agenda once for no more than two minutes. public participation shall not exceed 90 minutes per agenda item during a single meeting. Interested parties may also contribute written public comment on agenda items via an online form on the Medford City Council website or a paper form in the office of the city clerk. All petitions filed by members, that hasn't changed. the in-person residential address hasn't changed, and the public comment period hasn't changed. So it is just a change to the first paragraph of the proposal. Councilor Lazzaro, I recognize you, and then Councilor Leming, and then Councilor Tseng. And I please invite everyone to take their private conversations outside of the room and allow the body to conduct public business.
[Zac Bears]: I think Councilor Leming might have it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: There's an attachment to... Please take your conversations outside if you're gonna have private conversations in the chamber.
[Zac Bears]: If folks could take their private conversations out into the, into the rotunda, please. Thank you, Councilor Zari. You may continue.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Vice President Collins, and then Councilor Scarpelli. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins, Councilor Scarpelli, then Councilor Callahan. Councilor Scarpelli. Wow.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Madam Vice President, if you would take the chair.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Well, it's been a fun one. I think when we talk about what local government is about, when we talk about democracy, when we talk about what it means to listen to the people and do what the people are asking, I think there's an honest disagreement between many of us, many of us who everyone likes to think agree on that. There's an honest disagreement about it. There's an honest disagreement about this council. Sometimes it's six to one, sometimes it's four to three, sometimes it's five to two. And I've been on the losing end of a lot of those. I disagreed with this council before I was ever elected. I came up to that podium, Councilor Scarpelli and I have talked about it, but I didn't come up and, say the council is illegitimate, and I didn't come up and say, where did you people come from? And I didn't come up and say that certain people should be allowed to make decisions and other people shouldn't. And I certainly didn't say that when people are elected to public office, that they should be forced and required and demanded to have the legitimacy of our government disrespected on a regular basis. Now, when we talk about what this council has been doing for three months now, We put forth a governing agenda in a public way. No council has ever done that before in this city. We put every item we wanted to work on for the next two years in that document and made it public. We talked about it at multiple meetings. We announced it. We said, here's everything. What was in that? A rental registry was in that. rent stabilization was in that transfer fee was in that prop two and a half was in that a new Medford High School was in that fixing the roads and sidewalks was in that everything that everyone has talked about tonight that we want to do was in that document and it passed this body unanimously. And it was put out publicly I will speak Thank you and you can wait. I'm not being rude, you're being rude. You need to have basic respect and decency for your government. These people were elected, me and these six people. You don't see me sitting here and saying, George, shut up, and allowing people to yell. Yes, please wait, thank you, please wait, thank you. Now, we did that, never been done before. We said what we wanted to do, and that's after we've campaigned and we've talked to residents. We disagree. We could sit here for three days and never take a break. And at the end of that, we could hear from everybody 50 times. There are things we are going to disagree on. That is what living in a society means. And the way that we work through those disagreements is the democratic process. We have a democratic process in this community. It's called an election. People won an election and those people are doing what they believe. I'm one of them. I know there are people who won an election in this room who disagree with me. And they say on some things, I don't know, maybe not all the time. We've disagreed at the podium before, I'll at least say. And George and I have had many a disagreement in committee. I hear him. I listen. I try to take it seriously. Sometimes I change what I think. Sometimes I make an amendment to my resolution. Sometimes we find a different answer. Sometimes we don't. We were on the opposite ends of this for two years, where I was on the end of a lot of 5-2 votes, where I lost, and I didn't go out at the end of the day and say, oh, these people, they're bad Councilors, and I don't like serving with them, and I don't think they're my friends. How many times have I gone and defended George or Rick or John or Adam to people who think they're the worst person in the world? And I say, no, I sat next to them, and they have their best intents at heart, and so do I. And sometimes we disagree. There are rules in place to allow the public business to happen. There are state laws that govern this process their city council rules, and quite frankly, cancer Collins is right, unless this council chooses, they want to remove me. State law gives me, as the chair of this body and the chair of the meeting, the ultimate authority on any public participation. If I really wanted to silence everybody, I could stand there and bully my minions, as people think they are, and say, I'll stand here and public participation's over. And you vote me out of this chair if you don't want it. And you know, my minions will do it, right? Because they just think the way that I think. And everything I say, we sit here and we put our minds into telepathy and we connect us, the six of us, and we all vote the same way. We all believe the same thing because it's a cult of personality. And that's what happens, right? I could do that if I wanted to. I don't do that because I value the public forum. I may not support this resolution tonight. You don't know that. What I can tell you is that in 2022, 6-0, the council voted on a final rules package that reduced public participation from 10 minutes to five minutes. And where was the outrage in 2022 when this council reduced from 10 to five, and now we wanna go from five to three? Because a lot of people wanna talk, and a lot of people get in touch with me and say, I'm not coming to a meeting, I can't wait till 10 p.m., I got things to do. There's a lot of people. Just because you show up here in this room, even if it's 100 to one, it doesn't mean that you're representing all the people. It just doesn't. There was a night proposal in 2022 to create a public forum that's mentioned here. Some other cities and towns do that. We didn't vote for it at the time. The more I think about it, the more I think it might be the fairest way to do this. I don't know. I like the idea of Councilor Callahan to entertain alternatives, but I'm also gonna respect if there's a vote tonight that I'm on the wrong end of, I lost. Am I gonna get furious? Am I gonna scream? Am I gonna shout? Am I gonna say that we should storm the castle and take the back of the city? And these people are just, where did they come from? And they don't care about Medford, they don't love Medford. We agree to disagree. And what people call division is disagreement. We can listen, we can hear, we can sit there for hours. And at the end of it, I know we've all experienced it in our families, with our friends, with our colleagues. We may not agree at the end of the day. What's important is that we respect the systems and structures that we have created to work through the difficulties of these decisions, the democratic process, the elections of representatives to take votes. That is how this process works. If you want to change that process, run for office. If you want to change that process, go tell the Charter Committee to change the process. If you want to change that process, there are myriad ways to petition your government for the redress of your grievances, but it does not entitle anyone, anyone to say that I can talk for as much as I want, and I can say whatever I want, and that I shouldn't have to respect, because it's actually the disrespect of the people and the institution that degrades community trust. So when we can't talk to each other across our divisions and differences, there are plenty of people who I've talked to on the phone for an hour, and we were no closer at the end of that hour than we were at the beginning, and they said, you didn't hear me, you didn't listen to me, but I'll talk. It doesn't mean I'm going to change my mind. And there's a lot of people in this room I don't think I'm ever going to get to agree with everything I believe. And I understand that. But that's what this process is about. And at the end of the day, maybe this isn't the right approach. Maybe it is. We'll see how I vote at the end of it. But that's the vision of government. We are being as transparent as we can possibly be. We are entertaining and engaging with residents in myriad ways. We are having these public comment sessions on our issues. The way that every legislative body in the history of the world works is that a proposal is initiated, it's sent to committee, and we have a discussion. We have a lot of people online said, hey, we should just have one topic meetings when there's a lot of people who are interested. There are, they're called committees. When this goes to committee, when what just went to committee rental registry, we'll have a meeting on the rental registry. We'll have another four hours. and we'll talk about it, and maybe we'll disagree, and maybe at the end of this two years, so many people will disagree with six of us, that three of us will lose, and three more people will come on, and they'll repeal what we did, or they'll try, and I welcome it. That is what democracy is, and I invite anyone to participate in good faith in the process. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cassidy.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We're gonna go to Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: You did great. I clocked it at 2.20. We're gonna go to, and if folks, you can see, there's a little timer in the top right of the screen when I started. Gonna go to Haley Carr on Zoom. You have five minutes, Haley. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Haley. I generally wouldn't respond, but since that was pretty much about me, I'll entertain it. I'm not perplexed that people disagree with me. I know a lot of people disagree with me. Well, that whole thing was about me, actually. Thank you. So I'm taking quite a personal privilege to respond to a resident.
[Zac Bears]: Well, you did ask me to level with you, so I'm going to level with you, Haley.
[Zac Bears]: In any case, yeah, I'm not perplexed that there's disagreement. There's been disagreement for a long time. There was a Boston Globe article about people almost throwing chairs at each other across this this stage about 15 years ago. And yeah, there's disagreement in a community. And you can call it division, you can call it whatever you want. I can't actually remember all the things you want me to respond to. I know there are people in this community who don't trust me. I respect that. That's their right not to trust me. But I appreciate you bringing up the election. Yes, there was an electoral process, a campaign was run. Maybe it was new. Maybe it was innovative. Maybe people hadn't seen it before. It was successful and people were elected. We have been highly transparent as a body. And to be honest, I do, after these meetings, think about all the times that I have not held my composure when I have responded or made a face or said something when something that I feel in my heart and in my mind, ridiculous was said, and I can't hold it in. So I'm working on it. And I appreciate that comment. There are people here in this city who disagree with each other. That is what the democratic process is about. I never expect to win everybody's vote. I never expect to win anybody's trust. Everybody's trust. Anybody, any politician who says they do is lying to you. So I'm going to continue to do what I think is right. I'm going to continue to do what I think means representing the people of the city, not just the people who show up and speak in public meetings. And that's what you're going to get. And it's what I've said on every mailer and in every video and every debate and every council meeting for the last five years. And if I'm lucky, I'll be able to continue to do that for many years more. We'll go to the podium, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to Maureen on Zoom, but before I do that, when we talk about popular will, 25 individuals spoke against the rental registry. Thousands of people voted. I think we have an honest disagreement about what the definition of popular will is. Maureen, we're gonna go to you on Zoom. Name and address for the record. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: When a zoom K Lazzaro name and address for the record please you have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: I think actually there's the inclusion of the form as well. That's a separate. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I'm gonna go to Jess Healy on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Hi, Jess. Name and address for the record. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Jess. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I feel like you're engaging in good faith, and I want to engage back in good faith on a couple of things really quickly, which is just to say that the rules have changed over time. This charter's been in since 1987, passed in 1986. Before then, the council appointed a city manager. There's been a variety of approaches. I personally think part of democracy is trying new things. And Thomas Jefferson had the idea of a revolution every 30 years, because things need to change with the times. And I think that's some of what we're seeing happen. in many places across the country. Just on the point of what you're saying, I think we are trying our best, and I think I would speak for every councilor here, that we are open to hearing from people about how we can do better on the housing issue. If you look at the governing agenda we put out, which hadn't been put out before, there's a number of things under there. You listed things I think you would agree with, and I would agree with. Maybe things you would agree with, I would disagree with. Maybe things I would agree with, you would disagree with. trying to get the full scope of the strategy. We are having the meetings on zoning reform to significantly look at reducing regulations and allowing more to happen in this community to advance climate goals and planning goals and walkability goals and things like that. We're also looking at things like the transfer fee because there's a political window of possibility of how the city can acquire funding I don't think it's an ideal policy, but it's not just to say that we should only implement ideal policies and like when it comes to town meeting. I've been in town meetings before, you know, there's a reason that the city incorporated in 1892 into a city we used to have a town meeting right there's places that have town meeting representative town meeting Council Manager Mayor Council, this city's charter is a mayor council and it's representative democracy so you know. I just think these are good things to debate, but I also think there's systems and structures in place. But I do think we're trying to be as transparent as we can and say that we're looking at a number of different ways to approach major challenges and trying to be as open with the community as we can by listing those things. And I personally don't think it's always, we've decided there's one specific path and we're not willing to debate details and approaches. I think that's what we wanna do and one of the reasons that we have these committee meetings. So I hope that we can get more people attending and sharing their opinions at them. Thank you. I'm gonna go to Councilor Callahan, Vice President Collins, then we'll go to Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Vice President. I'm going to go to Nadine on Zoom. Nadine, name and address for the record. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Nadine, and I apologize if I actually agree with you. I was trying to make the point that there are a lot of people who don't get to talk in the meeting, so I agree with you on that. I'll go to the podium, name and address for the record, five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We have met since last March on the budget ordinance. We just passed it at our last meeting. Not the budget. No, it created a brand new budget process.
[Zac Bears]: No, hold on a minute. Okay. You read it. I'm going to answer your question.
[Zac Bears]: It said fix the budget process and raise revenue to fund our schools. We just passed the first budget ordinance in the history of the city to fix the budget process we're starting budget meetings, April 15, two months earlier than we ever have for, and we just released a press release from the financial task force of the council leadership the school committee leadership and the mayor to discuss raising revenue to fund our schools, city services and our capital needs so literally in the last two weeks we've done exactly what that bullet point said.
[Zac Bears]: It's not, it's about $215,000 in the deficit.
[Zac Bears]: with the mayor. Yeah. In what like to raise revenue, real revenue to bring in developers to bring real if you want to put the with the mayor on it, I've had two or three financial task force meetings with Vice President Collins and the mayor. So we've also had two meetings on the zoning ordinance two minutes on the linkage for your ordinance, three meetings on the governing agenda, two meetings on budget recommendations where we requested a lot of the things you're talking about. I mean, probably 1015 if you if you count what is this council done?
[Zac Bears]: We approved two planned development districts so far this year.
[Zac Bears]: I'm pretty sure it was six.
[Zac Bears]: I was in the first fifth grade at the Brooks, and I'm a good friend of Beth Fuller.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, and the building committee, and Orlando was the co-chair, Rick.
[Zac Bears]: How much were you paid?
[Zac Bears]: I would I would respectfully say that there's a lot of avenues where we're trying to do that and I would hope that we can consider all of our individual proposals and plans.
[Zac Bears]: I really hope folks applied for the building committee for the high school, we're going to have a lot of conversations coming out of the budget and the financial task force. I think we just need to consider everything on the merits, and I appreciate your input, and I hope that we can continue to do that.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Thank you, Bill. I'm going to go to Tony Tanks on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. I'm going to go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. Mr. Orlando, you have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Orlando. I'm not going to recognize this name. I'm going to go to Ron Giovino on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. Five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Ron, and the council looks forward to considering the recommendations of the Charter Study Committee. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: I was going to say it was George's moving van driver. He joked that he drove Georgia's moving van.
[Zac Bears]: But the subcommittees, the committees last as long as they need to last. So they're not just one hour. They could be five hours if they need to be.
[Zac Bears]: I have one vote.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Bianca Sasso on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're gonna go to Jennifer Yanko on Zoom. Jennifer, name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Not I, but thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I said we could talk for three days straight. We may not agree on everything. We may not get to a point of agreement. Yeah, and nothing's going to change. That's not true.
[Zac Bears]: That's how it works. Mr. Krumman, it changed tonight. The initial proposal was two minutes, now it's three minutes. It changed because people spoke.
[Zac Bears]: So it changed. Right. So there's evidence.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to school committee member and Toppa name and address for the record. Please welcome for your first time as a school committee member and congratulations.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I think we have three people who already spoken. So, have you spoken to Mr. Cassidy on this paper. All right, sorry you, you get to go first. Name and address for the record you have five minutes Mr. Cassidy.
[Zac Bears]: You have that, Mr. Clerk? I got it. All right.
[Zac Bears]: You have four minutes, 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, could that happen? Can we try to keep the swearing off of public access?
[Zac Bears]: Did you just say commie and B word?
[Zac Bears]: And he said it again.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. We'll go. And I want to be clear here. If we could try to keep second comments to two minutes, it is getting late. Mr. Fiori, name and address record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Again, I haven't responded to your email, but I might have some data on some of the previous elections I'll try to find in my sandbox. One interesting thing I've noticed, if you look at the 2005 to 2013 results, the average turnout was like 20 to 25%. And if you look at 2015 to 2023, It was 30 to 34%. And some of the interesting things I've noted blanks are way down, and usually you didn't see people on the down ballot races getting majority of votes cast, it was usually below 50% of votes cast very rarely one or two people were getting over 50% of votes cast. and that's starting to change as well. So I think some of the data and interesting facts about the election results would show that I think we're actually making improvement, and I'm hoping we can keep making improvement and getting more people involved.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna go to Jess Healy, who spoke before for two minutes, then we'll come back to you, former Councilor Berta. Jess, if you could, for two minutes, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I would just note, again, there's no national thing. There's an organization called Our Revolution Medford. It's made up of Medford residents. We work together as a team. If you go to ourrevolutionmedford.com, you can read the Medford People's Platform, which was created solely by Medford residents and Medford community organizations to advance a vision of Medford for all of us. So check it out. It's a local organization. I've lived here my whole life, and I care about this city deeply, along with my fellow colleagues, all of us here on the city council. Mr. Penta, if you could, two more minutes, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Because I'm as the chair at this late hour asking for people who are speaking.
[Zac Bears]: For speaking a second time against the rules of the council, Mr. Penta, allow one person to speak.
[Zac Bears]: It says five minutes one time. It doesn't say one time, it does not say one time. I would suggest you read it. That's beside the point.
[Zac Bears]: Freedom, freedom.
[Zac Bears]: Any motions on the floor.
[Zac Bears]: No, you may not.
[Zac Bears]: I just said you can't.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, Councilor Tseng thank you.
[Zac Bears]: You can go on, sir, you can go on, you can make an embarrassment of yourself, but it's me, Mr. Penta. No, you're not.
[Zac Bears]: Motion for a five minute recess. So moved. Second. Seconded by Councilors. All those in favor. Aye. Opposed. Meeting is in recess.
[Zac Bears]: So we have the motion to approve by Councilor Lazzaro as amended by Councilor Lazzaro to increase from two minutes to three minutes. and as amended by Councilor Tseng to add a 90 minute initial cap for discussion and any speakers after the 90 minutes would go for one minute each. Vice President Collins, could you take the chair? I have a B paper to propose.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Um. So one of the other things I've seen from some of the discussions online as well as some of the comments tonight is about making clear our process. So I would propose of the paper to add to rule 12 section three, uh, subsection, a new subsection subsection F, which would be referred to committee for further discussion. And there if to come on the agenda with the specific intent of going to committee for further discussion. That would then be clear and obvious to all parties reading the agenda that this is not the consideration of the proper topic, but that the topic is simply being referred to committee for further discussion. I think that would address some of the procedural issues. And I also think it is a reflection of adjusting and changing as we hear feedback about some of the new things that we're trying. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: It's since we're under consideration of the rules. It's just it would be a separate vote. So vote on this motion, it's not an amendment to this motion, it's a separate vote on changing that rule as well given what we've heard tonight about some of the rules issues around this thing I voted on before. It would be voted on first as the B paper be considered first, and then we would consider the promotion as amended by Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: it would be a motion to add to rule 12 section three to create a new subsection F that would be titled refer to committee for further discussion. And it would basically create under the rules of order, a new header on the council agenda where Councilors could specifically refer, have items that would be going to the committee system for discussion in the committee, put them there instead of having them mixed in with everything else where there may be final decisions happening during the meeting. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: And if I may, Madam President, we also made a change to the new committee agendas. We had had a papers and committee section, because we wanted to show everyone what is all the things that this committee is currently considering. People thought that that meant that all of them were on the agenda for that night. It actually ended up creating, in a goal for transparency, it created confusion. So we removed that, and now you can ask the clerk for it. So I think, again, as we try these new things, we are adjusting and changing as we get the feedback from the public about what helps and what doesn't.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion by members of the Council on the B paper? Seeing none, is there a motion to approve on the motion of Councilor Callahan, seconded by Vice President Collins on the B paper only? Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The B paper is approved. On the main paper, as proposed for approval by Councilor Lazzaro, as amended by Councilor Lazzaro and Councilor Tseng, is there any further discussion by members of the Council? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: And for the discussion by members of the council on the motion. And to be clear, that would be the motion as amended. It would be three minutes per speaker, 90 minutes at that level, and then anyone after the 90 minutes would be at one minute. So seeing no further discussion by members of the council, I'll go to the members of the public. Mr. Jones, I don't think you've spoken on this issue. Name and address for the record. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: It was referred to committee by a vote of five to two.
[Zac Bears]: The item was referred to committee for further discussion.
[Zac Bears]: A lot of folks have said that it would be better when we have an item where there's a lot of discussion, have it be the only item on the agenda.
[Zac Bears]: They're every Tuesday and Wednesday, generally.
[Zac Bears]: It's available on the city clerk's office, but 6 and 7 p.m. are the designated start times, but they can go much later than that.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, the same way every other public meeting is.
[Zac Bears]: Through all the channels that public meetings are communicated by.
[Zac Bears]: Call? Yeah, call, email, the clerk, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: They are emailed out, they're emailed out their website, they're they're published in the clerk's office, good to know there was still a newspaper, they'd be noticed in the newspaper, it would be great if we had a newspaper.
[Zac Bears]: If I received 10,000 emails or there were 10,000 people in line for public comment, I think that would be a very different story.
[Zac Bears]: I think, again, you're talking about very different scales of magnitude.
[Zac Bears]: I personally would disagree. I think the optics are that there are people who are not in the room who may hold a different opinion, who would ask us to make a different vote.
[Zac Bears]: Maybe they understand. Well, that's fine.
[Zac Bears]: Well, these are certainly not the longest meetings we've had.
[Zac Bears]: Why do you think the meetings are so long. 11 hours in June 2020 a whole Saturday was at 9am to 7pm, but that was a budget meeting probably right.
[Zac Bears]: I'll tell you why.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Jones. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: And Councilor Lemang on the motion of Councilors are as amended by Councilors are seconded by Councilor Tseng and amended by Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: No. Four in the affirmative, three in the negative. The motion passes. Is there a motion to take anything out of order? I know we have a couple of folks here who've been waiting a long time. 2-4-0-6-4 and 2-4-0-7-1. On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli to take papers 2-4-0-6-4 and 2-4-0-7-1, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. 24-064 offered by Vice President Collins resolution to support state make polluters pay legislation, whereas this legislative session bill 8872 S481 an act establishing a climate change super fund and promoting polluter responsibility. Also known as the make polluters pay bill was filed and whereas if passed this bill would establish a climate change super fund into which the largest oil and gas companies would pay 75 billion over 25 years with each company share proportional to their contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2018. And whereas oil and gas companies bear the responsibility for exacerbating the climate crisis and have consistently misrepresented the destructive impacts of fossil fuel combustion. on the global climate, and whereas climate change caused by global warming poses many serious threats to the city of Medford and its residents, including extreme heat, flooding, poor air quality, and other extreme weather, which are already impacting the Medford community, and whereas to adequately fund necessary climate adaptation and resilience projects, Medford requires funding at the scale beyond the reasonable constraints of the city's operating budget, and the passage of the proposed make polluters pay legislation in the state house would provide the means for Medford and other cities like it to adapt to climate impacts more adequately, equitably, and meaningfully, and Whereas the proposed legislation would mandate that 40% of the monies raised be allocated to projects benefiting environmental justice communities, encourage utilization of apprenticeship work programs and encourage adherence to prevailing wage laws and whereas this session the make polluters pay bill was given a study order by the Joint Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources but will be reintroduced in the next legislative session and whereas the Commonwealth of Massachusetts currently does not have a plan to adequately, equitably, and meaningfully fund necessary resilience and adaptation projects in affected communities like Medford. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Medford City Council expresses its support of H872S481, an act establishing a climate change super fund and promoting polluter responsibility to build polluter accountability and fund climate resilience. Be it further resolved that the City Clerk forward a copy of this resolution to the Medford Legislative Delegation, as well as the House Speaker, the Senate President, and the Office of the Governor, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further comments by members of the Council? seeing none. Is there public participation on this item? We'll take folks in order. Um and Mr. Jimmy, you know if you want to speak on on another matter, we'll take you up on the public participation section of the meeting. But we'll go to the podium first. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your time. I'm going to go to Zoom. Ron, do you want to talk about this topic?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I'm gonna go to Patrick Clerkin. Name and address for the record, please. Five minutes. Patrick. Oh, we've lost him. All right, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, William. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Every time we go after midnight, the first person they have to say that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. We're going to go to Marie Izzo on Zoom. Marie, name and address for the record, please. And you have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: That's it. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. Five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion on the motion? On the motion on the motion of Vice President Collins seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. Opposed motion passes to 4.071 resolution request Mayor Superintendent and NPS finance team. Meet with the city council to discuss financial shortfalls be resolved that the mayor superintendent of schools and the NPS finance team even the city council to discuss financial shortfalls and request a letter from the superintendent. I do have a letter from the. that was forwarded to me from the finance director for Metropublic Schools. Report on the resolution of the FY 2024 budget shortfall. I appeared before the school committee on February 12th to report on the potential shortfall of 2.5 million. This is based on my first projection of what spending would be versus budget would be by year end. We began a process of reviewing spending, reviewing unencumbered funds, and identifying resource that could be utilized to ensure a balanced budget by year end. The CEO, Drew, identified the following. One in count was account was over encumbered by 265,000 due to a contract that cross fiscal years we identified spending that could be postponed to fiscal 25 the city identified a balance in the fiscal 23 school budget that could be used for any fiscal 24 expense that was charged to fiscal 23. We have $173,000 balance in the account the whole state reimbursement funds, we have a balance of 291,000 state funded circuit breaker account. We were projecting a balance in our final year of ESSER funds of $200,000, which can be used for eligible expenses currently being charged to the general fund. There is a balance in the vocational tuition revolving fund, and I targeted $200,000 from this fund to pay for vocational program teachers being charged to the general fund. I created a charge back to our school lunch program, $57,000, to recover the proportional share of natural gas and electricity used by the program. In addition, with the assistance of the city's finance director, an error was identified in the projection model, which was causing the deficit to be overestimated. After correcting this error corrected the account all the other things that were just listed the projected deficit now stands at 216,000, we will use the extra balance and other budget management initiatives to ensure we finish the year with a balanced budget, any of the identified resources that are not needed for deficit reduction and fiscal 24 are eligible to be carried forward into fiscal 25 will be carried forward attached, please find reconciliation of the identified resolution. And with that I will go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: We have been joined to ex officio capacity by the finance directors.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have minutes by the way? He joins the meetings.
[Zac Bears]: I just need to clarify a couple of things. Well, I agree with Councilor Scarpelli that it is disappointing that a number of significant developments did not move forward. And I disagreed with the decision to spend two years in land court fighting the glam calculation for the 40 Bs. I completely agree on that. There are a few things we have had some new growth it's not enough. I was talking to the assessor yesterday and he believes that the new growth in the fiscal 25 budget is going to be significant, whether it's significant enough to address the issues outlined. We'll see when we get the data and information, but when it comes to collaboration and quote unquote getting suckered. The financial task force was announced the day of the last budget, along with commitment to advance the budget ordinance and improve the process. There have been some, some missteps in terms of getting information, but we got the financial task force we've been meeting, and we've announced a plan for the first time ever to actually seriously consider having the voters contribute the additional funding needed to fund our schools. And that was not getting suckered. That's actually collaborative work that I was surprised and honestly pleasantly surprised to see come from the administration after what was a really difficult year and two years of budgets. But yeah, we have been meeting in the financial task force. It was announced last June. We began meeting in the fall. We've had several meetings. the release that we just put out because we finally agreed on a path forward coming around the budget. And you're going to see us going collectively and collaboratively from all branches of government to ask the voters to address the 30 years of disinvestment and financial mistakes that have led the city to this point.
[Zac Bears]: The money's there.
[Zac Bears]: And I'm just gonna again say, you were right that the first three years we didn't get anything. We had an agreement last year. She did not the first four years. He's still done the fourth budget. We made agreements. And we have the budget ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: We haven't done nothing talked.
[Zac Bears]: You know, sounds a lot like Bob Penta a couple hours ago. public participation, name and address to the record, please. You should listen yourself tonight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Gahan. Ron or Marie, are you trying to speak on this item from Zoom? No. No. All right, thanks. I will go to the podium name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you to those questions. If you don't mind, I do have some answers. This the 225 million free cash balance is the free cash reserve right now. It hasn't been certified since the end of fiscal 23, so there isn't access to it. I don't know if the mayor intends to appropriate any of that money to serve as one time funds to fund the budget to replace one time funds such as SR and ARPA, which were a gap. this council has constantly raised with the mayor concern about the underestimating of local receipts and the goal for the use of that money, since if we were estimating it properly, we could have additional funding in the spending for the budget. The mayor has responded and her finance director has responded generally that underestimating that amount is a fiscally conservative and responsible decision in case the receipts do come under, and if they do come over, then that money goes to free cash. This council has generally disagreed with that assessment. we do not appropriate funds and only the mayor can allocate an appropriation from free cash reserves or any other one time fund reserve to support deficit issues in the budget. So that's one of the reasons that the financial task force has been exploring permanent stable funding through what two and a half override to go to our schools so that we're not looking at trying to use free cash reserves to plug holes. Thank you. Seeing no one on zoom name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Well, there's there's two things. If you're talking about the stabilization fund that the mayor came to request that we create She requested that we create the account, but not that we appropriate any funds to it. So no money was appropriated. It was the creation of an account that in the future could have money appropriated to it. That would actually allow that 25 million balance we were talking about to be used year round or some portion of it if it were added to the fund, whereas currently it can only be used after certification, which is usually. six to nine months into the fiscal year, so it's not available for use. To the second question, yes, everything is audited by an independent outside auditor. You can find that on the city website. It's called the ACFR Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. There's usually a 12 to 18 month process after the conclusion of a fiscal year where the audit occurs and then the report goes out. So that is how that works.
[Zac Bears]: Circuit breaker is a technical term. There's a state circuit breaker law that's for funding special education.
[Zac Bears]: And similar with the vocation.
[Zac Bears]: No, not like an electrical circuit breaker. Yeah. So that's one of the, if you look at the, it's called the cherry sheet, but it's what we get from the state government every year. It's an allocation of state funds. One of the lines is the special education circuit breaker. And it's based on enrollment and other factors. And similarly, like vocational tuition revolving account, that's for people who are out of the city, who place their kids into the VOC. And then the other cities, when they're placed, they send tuition in. So if they underestimate that in the budget, for example, say there's 10, 20 more kids that are coming to the VOC than they thought from outside the city, then you may have a balance that was unbudgeted. And then that could be go back.
[Zac Bears]: I hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Just on some of the questions, you know, in terms of the process, generally we hear from the school team during the budget season after the school committee has completed its process and made a recommendation to the mayor. So they will then come before us. We'll have time to answer questions until that point. they are the they create the school budget, our only authority on the school budget is actually even less than we have on the rest of the budget. On the rest of the budget we can approve or cut specific line items on the school budget, we can only approve or cut the total allocation of the schools, we can increase it. On some of the specific questions, I've spoken to former Superintendent Belson or heard him speak at public meetings, former school committee members, current school committee members, This process of scraping the revolving accounts and the circuit breaker funds and the state funds, you know everything needs to go into its different account revolving accounts when you have outside sending tuition or you have fees charged for programs that go into the revolving. I was in the schools in 2009 2010 when we were gutting programs during the recession, and the city wasn't. putting any money back in, revenues were declining. I mean, I lost multiple programs and teachers at the time. It's really been standard practice for the Medford Public Schools going on 20 years to be scraping the bottom of the barrel of these funds and saying, oh, it's the end of the year. Maybe we're in a good place. We don't have to scrape them this year. Then they save the money for the next time they have to scrape the funds. And they go, it's not found money. It's $100,000 here, $50,000 there, $10,000 there that's in an account. And when things get bad, they go and they scrape it and try to keep as much as they can in there. I have generally considered this to be bad practice I don't think it's how we should fund a school system I don't think it doesn't show we value our public school system and that's why I think, personally, and why I've been working with my colleagues on this. We need to increase permanent funding for the schools so that we're not scraping the barrel of revolving funds and circuit breaker funds or trying to go to the free cash reserve to plug gaps with one time funding. So there's permanent funding there. To me that's what this looks like. They said oh we can identify this account, maybe there was some hundred thousand from the previous year, we can identify a contract across fiscal year so we'll charge it to the previous year rather than this year. We found a settlement we can book to fiscal 25 or fiscal 24. We're going to book it to that. To me, it's an indication of people, maybe not enough people, and maybe not enough resources, but people working very hard to try to make do with what is available, find every dollar that's in every account. And the sad part is that I've experienced this personally, and we've seen it in many years. The fiscal 2020 budget was one of the worst ones. I think we were looking at a three, $3.5 million hole, and we asked the mayor to put some free cash in. I think she put in a million, million five, so it wasn't enough. but that is there's not enough left at the end of the year, the systemic underfunding of the system. And even when the barrel is scraped and the funds are pulled from every nook and cranny that they can be pulled from rather than maybe being left there to be used for something new, we still can't fund the basics. And that's what I'm hoping we'll look at, a systemic solution. I'll go to Councilor Tseng, Councilor Lazzaro, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just do also want to read the we made three recommendations to the mayor for this budget under the new budget ordinance process, and the first line of the first recommendation was recommendation for a level service budget, including meeting the public school funding recommendation. So that was the first recommendation that we made to the mayor.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. iPad5, if you could change your name or start your video, I'll let you speak. All right, just wanted to make sure you were a real person. iPad five, name and address for the record. Oh, it's Charlene. Hi, Charlene.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Charlene. and discussion on the motion.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, one second. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: So on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, I can't thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I also appreciate what your remarks are also apologize for getting into a heated argument with you. There's the big picture of things, going back to the presentation I made two years ago that made me the 18-month enemy of the administration. And I think that that structural reality exists when it comes to what's happened this year, what's the accounting, where are we budget to actual, and the law department. I have asked, and my expectation is we will receive the data that shows us that, law department, everything else. And I can understand the frustration with, and I've said this many times to the administration, I think we can all see the big picture of the issues in the city. In the long run, the structural issues, the underfunded capital gains, et cetera. Why make it hard for us to have those conversations by not giving us the little easy things that I know you can generate? And that's the piece of it where I ask for more. But I am hopeful. I have not been hopeful at the level that I am that we will have information that we have not had in four years. I can respect you sitting here for four years plus another four before that and feeling hopeless that we will not receive it. And the next two months will play out what will be seen. And I hope that I'm right. And if you're right, I've come up. I hope I'm not. I hope you're not, and I have sat mostly in that chair, but I'll be saying it here now that I was wrong. And that's, to me, what trust is about. When I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong. And I hope I'm not. And I hope you aren't right, but we'll see.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion on the motion to receive and place on file by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng? All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. We withdraw? OK. Withdraw 24072. Mine are really quick, if you guys don't mind me, for six minutes. Council Vice President Collins, if you could. These are get thing out the doors. Get things out the door type thing. Can we take the Cherish Act?
[Zac Bears]: Actually, just take it in order. I don't know what I'm saying. Sorry. Well, I took it from you. It's 2406 on page 26, MWRA water supply. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Relatively self-explanatory, but the Casella Corporation, a large waste removal corporation, is proposing building a major landfill within two miles of the Quabbin River watershed. folks who don't know, when we talk about climate change, when we talk about access to fresh drinking water, we in the state are incredibly privileged to have the Guabin Reservoir, a multi-billion gallon water reserve, it is entirely naturally filtered, which means that if this landfill were to be an issue, or if trucks which would actually be moving through the watershed zone were to crash on a bridge or something like that, it would endanger and potentially pollute the Quabbin Reservoir, which is the main source of fresh water for this entire region for the millions of people who live here. I did see Fred Lasky, who is the MWRA executive director at CVS the other day, but I was too far away to catch him. He is a Medford resident. In any case, really, there's a number, basically all the MWRA towns, the MWRA itself, and a lot of people at Hardwick are organizing against this landfill because we don't want it to be built and we don't want any danger to come to the wonderful, amazing, infrastructure that we have built here to make sure that everyone has fresh water in their homes. So I would ask my colleagues to move approval, ask my colleagues to support it, and we can get this out to Fred and to our state delegation to make sure this doesn't happen.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to suspend the reading in favor of a summary by the proponent. 2-4-0-6-5.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. As folks know, this is an issue of passion area for me when I first ran for the City Council. I also ran an organization called PHENOM, the Public Higher Education Network of Massachusetts, and I am lucky enough to have worked with Massachusetts Teachers Association President Max Page and many others to come up with a seven word acronym for the CHERISH Act. one more word than the six word acronym for phenom. So you know how we can be in higher education. But this is an act that has been now on the books for about six years. It has over 100 co-sponsors in the legislature. And to me, when you have over 100 co-sponsors, that's a 50% majority, and that should be enough to pass a law, I would think. But sadly, that's not how things work these days in the Massachusetts legislature. And therefore, even though Representative Garber is the lead sponsor, Senator Jalen, Representative Barber, and Representative Dodato are all co-sponsors. We still need to ask them to push their leadership. This was extended to be passed, but it would use revenue from the fair share amendment to address 30 years of underfunding at our public colleges, which has caused a student debt crisis. You've got someone at Bridgewater right now. So you're, you're living it, you know, used to be a little bit more affordable to go to a state school. Um, I'm paying off my UMass loans. We won't talk about where Justin went to college. And, uh, um, I don't know how much it costs, but I think, you know, if you go into any other field, you probably make it up on the backend, except this one. Um, So I would ask my colleagues to support this resolution and move it forward as we send it up and hope that the legislature considers this reinvestment in our public college and university system, which is really the economic engine for our teachers and so many others.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much for sticking with us, Julia.
[Zac Bears]: These are both going to committee, right?
[Zac Bears]: All right, let's do it. 24069, resolution to discuss a modernization of the Human Rights Enabling Ordinance. be resolved that the Committee on Resident Services and Public Engagement need to discuss a modernization of the Human Rights Commission Enabling Ordinance and invite current and former Commissioners to provide input. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng to refer to the committee on resident services and public engagement. Seconded by council vice president Collins. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. We've withdrawn to 4072 or do we want to postpone or withdraw withdrawn to 4073 resolution and provide established city council listening sessions. Whereas many studies have shown local governments primarily here from a small portion of residents additional corporate interests and those residents who do reach out to be more affluent be resolved at the committee on resident services and public engagement reach out to city staff residents and community groups to develop a bonus series of listening sessions for Councilors listen to residents to extend the council outreach to residents, particularly a various underrepresented or underserved neighborhoods and backgrounds. And the short summary is we're sending this to the resident services and public engagement to establish a series of listening sessions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Council is R O. On the motion to refer to the resident services of public engagement committee by Councilor Tseng seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor, I oppose motion passes public participation. We have public Seeing none in the room, I will go to Zoom. Mr. Giovino, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Gimeno. I apologize. I did not see your hand raised, and that is my fault. We have Marie Izzo, hand raised. I will recognize you, Marie.
[Zac Bears]: All right, well, thanks for sticking with me. Any further public participation? Anyone want to take anything off the table? Unfinished business? On the motion of Vice President Collins to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes, meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. One second here. So we can start with the short-term rental platform report. 2022 zoning recodification, we created a section 94-8.4 to specifically regulate short-term rentals in the city. And one of the elements of that regulation is a registration process where the actual operators of short-term rental units register with the city. certifying that the operator has permission of the owner, that they pay a $200 annual registration fee, that they re-register the unit upon transfer of ownership or operator, and a number of other items. This is really designed to This entire ordinance is really section of the zoning ordinance designed to regulate short term rentals, which have become in some cases, a nuisance issue in certain neighborhoods, a supply issue across the city. And it's not to say that we don't want short term rental options. I know there's a lot of people who do take advantage of them for a number of. incredibly valid reasons, but to make sure that the city has a clear understanding of how much of the housing stock is being taken up by short-term rentals, what the conditions of those short-term rentals are, and that the operators are treating neighbors with respect when it comes to trash, noise, et cetera. So that was the intent of the ordinance. It has been in place now for a little over, a little less than two years. There've been certainly some improvements, but from conversations that we've had in this chamber with members of the public, with folks from the building department, in terms of enforceability, one of the biggest issues is there's really not enough staffing at the city level to make sure that every unit in the city is actually registered. And there's no way to know if units are being, no systemic way for the city to know in an effective way if units are being, rented through these platforms without permission, essentially, unregistered units. So one of the solutions that other communities have had when they've run into these situations is actually going to the profit centers here in the short-term rental industry. So going to your major short-term rental platforms like Airbnb, HomeAway, Vrbo, etc. and requiring that those platforms issue reports to the city of all of the units that are being rented on those platforms. And then the city has a clear piece of data. It's not just like you have the building inspector, the code enforcement officer in their spare time going to airbnb.com and trying to figure out what's a valid rental and what isn't, which is basically the best that we can do right now. But actually having an official monthly report from the short-term rental platforms themselves that says, here's all the addresses at which short-term rental units were rented in your city. As I noted, some other communities have done this. Boston has done this. And I think it's worth consideration of a zoning amendment to put this into our short-term rental ordinance and beef up the ability of the city to have an accurate registry of the short-term rental units in the city as we work through comprehensive policy to try to address the housing crisis here in the community.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think that's a discussion we need to have with the building department. Right now they're tasked with enforcing the zoning ordinance and enforcing this element of it. So I believe it would be staff in the building department who would be taking this report and entering it into the database that's currently required by the registration section of the ordinance. But I think that's part of kind of the next steps is we'd want to talk about that with them. And I do have some suggestions to go forward from here about sending some draft language to the building department, getting input from the building commissioner. Also, I think it'd be good to hear from planning a little bit, just if they have suggestions, but I'll hold that until we have more discussion. And if there's thoughts, I do have some language here that I'm happy to read at any time from the Boston ordinance, if anyone just let me know.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Give me one second.
[Zac Bears]: But yeah, I mean, it's a pretty short sentence. It really would just be amending section 94-8.4.13 to include some section around what they, in the Boston ordinance, they call data sharing. And the section is 90, this is in Boston, 9-14.11 data sharing. A booking agent shall provide to the city on a monthly basis an electronic report in a format determined by the city. in consultation with their inspectional services, information technology, and neighborhood development departments. Of the listings maintained, authorized, facilitated, or advertised by the booking agent within the city of Boston for the applicable reporting period, the report shall include a breakdown of where the listings are located, whether the listing is for a room or a whole unit, and shall include the number of nights each unit was reported as occupied during the reporting period. And I did just start trying to work out, I think, what would be essentially a similar structure would be in place of their acronyms, just that the booking agent would provide it in a format determined by the city in consultation with the building department, IT department, and the Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability.
[Zac Bears]: I would just move that we request that the clerk refer this amended language to the building commissioner, the IT director, and the PDS director for review within 60 days and comments before we begin to incorporate this into, I think we could make it part of our zoning update. Yes, I will set that too.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, thank you, Councilor Collins. I did a quick run through of appendix A of the city ordinances, and I think there's a few things to note. One, in terms of fees set by ordinance, in my four plus years on the council, I believe we've only amended one or created one fee, and that was the planned development district fee. And I don't believe we've ever amended another fee. I may be wrong. I'd have to go double check, but I can't remember a vote on updating a fee. So certainly these fees have not been reviewed or updated in five years. I know anecdotally speaking with many department heads where fees are set by ordinance, they have said that some of these fees may well be 25, 30, 40 years old. certainly at least 10 plus years old and just are not reflective of the cost that it takes to process paperwork, not reflective of peer neighboring communities and the fees that they charge. I think I heard the clerk give telling the anecdote that he's told me before that there are people who come to get married in Medford because it's so much cheaper than getting married everywhere else. And, um, you know, there's some romance in that, I guess, uh, but, um, I just think that it's... As we've worked through many ordinances and just looked through the bulk of the work of the city, it's very clear that there's things that have just not been looked at in a very long time. And this one, some of these are ripe. We're talking about building permit fees for large developments. We're talking about a number of things that could be really significant in terms of the questions that we have around revenue and the underfunding of city government, underfunding of all of our basic infrastructure, underfunding of staffing levels, schools, capital needs, etc. You know, we're having those hard, difficult conversations around funding in a lot of different ways. And this is one of the kind of low-hanging fruit ways, along with what we talked about, I would say, with linkage earlier yesterday and last week, where we can knock some things off and try to see what we can bring in through these things. I don't think dog licenses are ever going to be the solution to building a new high school. I don't think anyone thinks that to be true. But it can maybe help a little bit. And I think that's an important thing for us to factor in. So I did go through, again, Appendix A. And it looks like of the about 10 or 11 or so fee categories, Many of them are within the building department, some of them in the DPW, some of them in the clerk's office, but we have animals and rodents, much of that in the health department, but also some in the clerk's office, some in the building department around dogs for the clerk's office. A number of building fees in the building department, electrical fees sitting with the electrical department, plumbing fees with the building department. The business licenses and other fees are split between the clerk's office, DPW, and the building department. Cemetery fees with DPW. Fire prevention and protection with fire. Streets, sidewalks, and public places tended to be DPW or engineering. Utilities also tended to be DPW, engineering, water, sewer. Vehicles for hire I couldn't quite place. I could see that maybe being in DPW engineering, We have the Traffic and Transportation Director there, but I also don't know that it's an entirely applicable fee schedule there anymore. I'm trying to go back to see exactly what it is, but I don't know how many taxis are operating out of Medford these days, and it is just related to taxi cabs. And then zoning, again, goes back to building and planning development sustainability as well. So those are just some of the departments that I've identified having some relationship to the Appendix A fees, many of which are noted or set by ordinance. So I think it will be worth And I can kind of type this up in the form of a motion asking each department to take a look within the next 90 days at the fee schedules that their departments pertain to and reply with a recommended adjustment that we can then initiate the process to adjust. That should give them time to take a look at neighboring communities and what their fees are. contact any sort of professional associations or networks of city and municipal staff that they may be a part of and kind of just see what's the going rate these days and Medford getting caught up with the times.
[Zac Bears]: I think that's a great idea. with the language of the actual motion.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Daniel. I appreciate that update. Do you know if those fees are... I actually didn't see, and maybe I just missed them. Are they even included in the fee schedule? Because the only site plan review I see is 150 per 1,000 square feet site plan review application at MUZ District. So we might need to... further update all of the different fees even if they're not set by ordinance and maybe also want to indicate what body has the authority to set fees.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I honestly, as I look at the appendix, I don't know that they're all set by us. Some of them certainly outline let's say what section of the ordinance the fee is set in. But for example, like if I go over the opening of streets and sidewalks, it says the following license or permit shall be issued by director of public works and the fee set forth in appendix A of these revised ordinances, but it doesn't say what the fee is. So I think it's important for us to I think it'd be great if we could update this list to be comprehensive. So I appreciate that you're already working on some of that.
[Zac Bears]: Just a thought. It seems to be that that's what this is. So when we set up the PDD fee, we set it up, but that it would be updated. It wouldn't require to go through a three reading ordinance process. It would just be a simple majority vote of the council. So I think there'd be a lot of value in just getting these all in one place. and having a clear list of who sets them and by what authority.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, there's some stuff in here, if I may, along those lines. Like we do have the Uber Lyft, the TNC's, Transportation Network Company, I think is their non-branded label. Never heard that before. We collect those. It's not listed here. We collect short-term rental fees. It's not listed here. I think that's a, yeah, definitely there's things that are not listed. And none of the community development fees that Danielle just mentioned. So.
[Zac Bears]: I don't, I mean, sometimes we will get a report during budget time that's like building permits brought in XYZ or anything. You can ask for discrete reports from finance, but it's generally not. I have not seen like a spreadsheet table of here's what all the fees bring in, split out. I mean, I'm sure it's producible, but I haven't seen it.
[Zac Bears]: I have two more motions, but I can wait. I'm going to email it to you. OK.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, I think it would make sense. I don't know what the legal. Maybe we can ask for that.
[Zac Bears]: And I included what I thought was in his amendment, too. Well, I wrote it down as an amendment, though. I'm not taking credit.
[Zac Bears]: I haven't made these other two ones yet.
[Zac Bears]: I second.
[Zac Bears]: I think we should be aware that when we ask KP law questions, they get very specific answers. And I think we should add the language, or another inflation measure. Or another inflation measure. That's what I would use, something like that.
[Zac Bears]: I have two more motions. Great. One is a motion to request that all city departments provide a report to the City Council within 90 days on any fees they assess as a department and share a complete list of those fees and the legal authority For example, state law, city ordinance, board and commission rules and regulations that allows them to charge set fees. That's one motion.
[Zac Bears]: And then the last motion, I can give it a minute. Oh, cool. It's a motion to request that all city departments share feedback on any new fees that should be charged, fees created by ordinance that are no longer relevant, and other comments on existing fees, for example, name changes, updates to legal authority, et cetera. Basically just a catch-all if you got a comment on the fees, feel free to send it.
[Zac Bears]: I was, I missed, you went quickly through the introduction. I maybe missed my opportunity to jump in as the person who introduced the paper. So I apologize for that. But as you did know, Councilor Scarpelli and myself and I believe other councillors in November, Councilor Morell, Councilor Caraviello, we did introduce a number of papers regarding the issues that had gone on with the municipal election of 2023. Procedural errors that occurred prior to the counting of the votes and how those were disseminated to the public and what the responses and solutions to those were going to be and kind of what the accountability system was going to be. And, you know, that was even resolution submitted before the recount, which occurred, which did, of course, affirm the results. But the underlying issue of when we have procedural errors, what is the protocol of the elections department? in clearly notifying everyone and being very transparent an error occurred. This is how the error happened. We've identified the issue. This is how we're going to rectify it in the future so it doesn't happen again. That was really what I think was the main concern of all involved, was making sure that there was that openness about issues happening and making sure that there was clear understanding about addressing them in the future. And, you know, we continued to kind of have issues. really through earlier this year, then obviously there was a staffing change in the office. And I would say that since then, when there have been errors, we have received very clear reporting of this was the issue. This is how we identified it. This is the solution that we're putting into place. We did also receive the report that we requested and we have discussed it in council in January. going over the 2023 election, and that was from the elections manager at the time. And I do appreciate the elections commission chair also submitting his own report as an addendum to that, that really, I think, got into some of the deeper details. and the procedural fixes that need to go into effect. I think one thing that we do need to note across this whole question is we have more complicated elections than we've ever had before. We have many elections every year, generally at least two elections every year. And with the new laws at the state level with the Votes Act and the permanent mail voting, early voting, very extensive, of course, coming up this year for our presidential election. I think there's 14 days of early voting. And of course, polling location issues, et cetera, et cetera. We have running elections in the city has never been more logistically complicated, requiring more resources and more staff, including full-time staff and part-time staff. And I think it's really important to recognize that. I think the question, at least that I had was, One, do we have the staffing levels needed to succeed in these roles? Especially, do we have the staffing levels needed to succeed without elections commissioners who really are not supposed to be doing day-to-day work, who had been doing more, I think, than the general that. Um assessment is of what elections commission should be doing. They should be reviewing the results and approving things and addressing procedural issues outlined by state law. So you know that really is to me the, um. First question, and then I think we also quite frankly had a question of did we have staff in place who we felt, um, was doing the job and meeting the meeting the moment. I think that's in the past, so we don't need to the elections commission and from the chief of staff. Um. To have a fully staffed elections office full time. Um and make sure that we have the election staff and on the part time basis, our wardens are elections official officers at the polling places, folks to staff early voting people working on the on the mail balloting, um, to do the job effectively. And I know that in this case, the past that because of the departure of a member of the staff that the chief of staff was doing the bulk of that work. And obviously that's not a sustainable model. We need staff in the elections department to do that. those are kind of just that's kind of my general framing on all of this. I do want to acknowledge some significant improvements and when I did issues are identified that we did receive clear reporting on that. And there was public discussion about it, which is important. And I also want to note that we as a council did pass a resolution and I have had conversations with the chief of staff to really clarify that there is an elections department in the city of Medford that is staffed by staff members. that is separate from the Elections Commission, just like the Board of Registrars was different than the people in the Registrar and Voters Office. And it's important to understand, we don't call the Water and Sewer Department the Water and Sewer Commission. We call it the Water and Sewer Department, and there's a Water and Sewer Commission that oversees it, but then there's the actual staffing of that. So I think just updating our nomenclature, signage, et cetera, in physical form and digital form to make it clear, there's an Elections Department, there's a staff member of that elections department who runs it, there are other staff members within that department, both full-time and part-time, and they're the ones who manage the elections is really key. So thank you, Chair Tsang.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say that I agree with some of what was said. I mean, there are. Procedure There were We got a report back, again, from the elections commission, from the chief of staff to the elections commission to the city council about the Super Tuesday primary. There was a signage issue at the Roberts School. Site visits were made. There were not further complaints after signage was remedied. There was election results subsequent to the closure of the polls. you know, what Councilor Schapiro is talking about with the central tabulation system. You know, I have had conversations with the Elections Commission, and it's right in here, that the file download was slow, and that may be a technology issue going on when doing central tabulation. And, you know, There was an issue with 77 ballots in post-election tabulation, where there's a communication with the elections division of the Secretary of State's office. But I have communicated personally with the elections division of the Secretary of State's office. I communicate with them before the November election, after the November election, sometimes this year as well. They did not come in here and look at anything. They did not come in and say that there was a broken system of any kind. We had a recount run by some of the most respected legal counsel on the petitioner side, as well as on the city side. And while issues were identified, those issues were not determinative of the outcome. And certainly, I think the point is we need to address issues like this, right? We need to make sure that the process is up to snuff, that the staff is there. I think on that's the one piece of this that we all agree on, but the idea of, you know, investigatory issues into like large scale problems here, the secretary of state's office and the elections division has not made that determination, has been asked to make that determination and has declined to make that determination. So I am interested in hearing what is our plans on staffing and financial resources for the elections department going forward. I completely do agree that there needs to be. I'm a full time elections department director, and as this council has said multiple times, I do not believe, and this council has voted multiple times to say that we do not believe that 2.5 FTE in that office is sufficient. We do not have the authority to increase any line item in the budget whatsoever, including that line item, but we have said many times in the past that it doesn't seem like the two and a half that. I don't think that F T is sufficient, but I will. Stop there, and I'm interested to hear from our elections commissioners and our chief of staff about what the plan is around staffing that office getting the open positions filled as well as if there are additional changes coming down to make sure that staffing and training are that this it's from my observation in my conversations with the election staff members at all levels, this past March election was much smoother than the November election.
[Zac Bears]: the voter registration, the RIS system is maintained by the Secretary of State's office, not by the city of Medford. And two, if someone moves within the state and re-registers to vote within the state, then that pings within. But if you had a roommate who moved out of the state and they never re-registered in Massachusetts, they're gonna be in that system. The catch, the back catch to that is the census and inactivation system. So when Councilor Scarpelli was mentioning there were people being put in a line to say you're an inactive voter, that's because they didn't fill out their city census form, or their city census form did not arrive at City Hall. Maybe they did fill it out, it didn't arrive. I can't speak to the Postal Service. I have had some things disappear in the mail lately. That is the catch, essentially the secondary system for addressing that issue. And there have been some questions around that, but that does generally happen. And I know that the census is an intense amount of work for that office. So I just wanted to put that, the city census, which is very different from the federal census. But I just wanted to put that out there, because I think we would see that there is a very well, as best as possibly can be, the thing that we control is the city census. And when you look at the, role of who is active and inactive that is a much more culled list it is there's you know generally 20 to 25,000 active voters in the city who are returning a city census during federal elections like and honestly quite frankly some of this is cyclical and due to turnout right we have around 30 to 35 percent turnout in municipal elections that's generally consistent although it's a since 2015 is much higher. It used to be between 20 to 30 percent, so that's actually better. But in any case, you have 30 to 35 percent turnout in a municipal election, 50 to 60 percent turnout in a state general election, the off year, the 20, you know, 22, 26, the gubernatorial election. And then in a presidential general, you have 70% to 80% turnout. So if you have people who are coming out in the federal presidential and then not voting again for four years, they're dropping off. They're staying registered, but they're dropping off of the active voter list. That's why even then the active voter list is in that 20,000 range. That's also people who are turning back in the city census. So I think where there's a desire for this to be perfect, and I certainly support it, The pieces of it that are within our hands generally seem to be going relatively well. It can always be improved. I'm sure there's a way to do the city census better. I don't know that the state allows us to do it other than the paper way that we do it. But it's that 42,000 registered voter number has a lot of, there are a lot of reasons that number exists and some of them don't have anything to do with Medford whatsoever. And I just think that's important to put out there. I think it'd be great if it was a little lower and a little more accurate, because then we can say we have higher turnout, but, you know. No, thank you for clarifying, Council President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just had two quick questions on the timeline. Sounds like the pool is good and you're not gonna get into specifics, I respect that, but hopefully within four to six weeks there'd be someone
[Zac Bears]: OK. And the halftime position, I know we've had some applicants, some hiring rounds, some non-hirings eventually. How are we there? Do we have applicants? Do we have someone in that position?
[Zac Bears]: And this- But there's people in the pipeline for the half-time position.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Bears. Thanks. Yeah, I just wanted to add one more thing, which is it may be valuable when the new person is hired for them to issue. As maybe I know you mentioned a post election audit. We're going to ask the team what they thought went well, what didn't go well, and we're going to, um, you know, update where needed procedures, processes, systems, etcetera. I thought that was great. I think it may be worth it. And it may meet some of the suggestions and thoughts of others to have the new elections manager kind of do an entry audit of some kind to say, okay, I have now arrived. here's what I see that playing, and I don't want to prescribe too much to it, but just to say, here's where I see things now. I'm looking forward to working with this team to run through the election. And then that would kind of give a benchmark from a somewhat outside perspective of someone who's new to the office. It may just be a way to have fresh eyes on something right away, write something to say, here's my perception on day one. you know, of what I think the office is, what my priorities are going to be going in, what I'm hearing from my staff, from the aid team, from the elections commission as priorities. And then, you know, after the September election, that could be a benchmark for them to write a report as well to say, you know, here's what I saw coming in. We've been through the primary. Here's some stuff, some conclusions that I'm going to put out there. So I just want to put that out as maybe a potential way for, um, uh, a potential thing for them to do when they start and also a way to talk to us and share with us what their vision is to be in this role, since it has been such a, there's been a lot of eyes and cameras and conversations and resolutions and public discussion about this role. And I think that is kind of the reality of elections being the person running elections. It is a, a level of responsibility to, nothing else happens if the democratic process doesn't happen, right? So there's a level of responsibility there. And I don't want to, again, I don't want to be too prescriptive about what that would look like. And I don't want to necessarily say, write everything down, tell us everything you think on day one and without some sort of editing process, of course. But I think there could be some value there. Just a thought.
[Zac Bears]: That idea goes out to Henry, Aaron, the commission, when I looked at you the whole time. So I know.
[Zac Bears]: I think I missed my moment to say there are unknown unknowns. It's amazing how a FOPA can also be a great analytical matrix at the same time. As a chair, I wanted to... Justin was two when he said that, by the way.
[Zac Bears]: The Council Administration and Finance Committee March 26 2024 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Five present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. Action and discussion items 24-056 offered by Councilor Leming. Resolution to bring Linkage Free Ordinance in compliance with the State Act. Establishing the ordinance and 24 this is a resolution. 057 offered by Council of the main resolution out of formal housing to the linkage fee structure. We discussed this in City Council. Along with a resolution on a separate paper that was sent to the planning development Sustainability Office to update our linkage fee structure, which has not been 34 years out of date, 34 years of inflation not taken into account, 34 years of linkage fee funds that could have gone to things like fixing our roads, parks, addressing water and sewer, and also affordable housing. So all of these issues were behind on by about three decades without the updates to linkage fee. So I really appreciate Councilor Leming for the extensive research and bringing this forward. Tonight we're going to be looking at mainly updates to the city ordinance, which is based on the state establishing law. And those ordinance updates would be to make some corrections, I believe, to the existing ordinance to bring in an alignment with the state law. as well as to add another box of affordable housing linkage fees to the linkage fee structure. That was allowed by the State Enabling Act in 1989, but the city never implemented it. So I believe with that, I will turn it over to Councilor Leming, and if at any point you'd like me to share my screen to share potential ordinance changes or the red line copy, I'm happy to do so. And before, one thing I'll say before that, we also do have legal, this has all been reviewed by legal counsel. So, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any comments or questions from members of the committee? Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: I think that's what they're saying. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Just if I may, we do have Housing Planner McGor from Planning and Development Sustainability staff on. And I think in terms of next steps, I'll let Councilor Leming answer more, but we sent the resolution to PDS to actually do the thing. And then this is the legal fix to make sure that our ordinances are actually in alignment with what the state law requires. But Councilor Leming, you're recognized.
[Zac Bears]: Is that the only one?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes. Yeah. Yes. Honestly, what might be easiest, since you have the Word document, is if you change it and send it. Yeah. I'll go ahead and do that. Great. I see that I see in the procedure section and the exemption section and then in the credit section that needs to be updated from section 1 to section 5.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming to make the correction seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I will recognize our housing planner. Just one moment. I also want to note this is a zoning ordinance change, so this is going to have to go through the zoning ordinance change process. Now that we have a draft, we're probably going to have to, I mean, there's a number of steps that are going to have to be taken, but we're going to have to, at the very least, schedule public hearings, the Community Development Board and the City Council, and follow the zoning ordinance amendment process, which is slightly different from, I don't think we've passed any zoning amendments this term yet, so it's a little more detailed. Go to our housing planner. You're recognized. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. And, you know, I think we're going to have a lot of chances as this moves through the zoning amendment process. Obviously, we'll get a formal recommendation from the Community Development Board in consultation with the PDS staff as well. So, we will definitely get all parties involved and their input before the final zoning amendment. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public in the chamber or on Zoom? Please raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, is there a motion on the floor? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: To the regular meeting to initiate the zoning amendment process so we would need to put this on as an amendment to the zoning ordinance on the regular meeting, and then that kicks off a series of procedural requirements to notice referring to. You know, basically, we'd put it on referring to community development board. They would then hold a public hearing. They would make a set of recommendations. Then we would consider those recommendations during a meeting, which we held a public hearing, and then we would take a vote on the final zoning ordinance amendment. So, if we keep it in committee, we can't do any of that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that would be through, when the Community Development Board has its hearing, the Planning Development staff would be part of that process and could suggest recommendations to the Community Development Board to suggest to us.
[Zac Bears]: All right. On the motion of Councilor Collins to report the paper out of committee, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favour?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Motion of Council Vice President Collins to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Lemme. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes, meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: City Council Committee of the Whole, March 20 2024. Please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. 7 present, none absent. Meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole, March 20, 2024 at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, MA via Zoom. To submit written comments, please email ahertobeast at medford-ma.gov. Action and discussion items 20-020 offered by former Councilor Knight on the food truck ordinance. The motion was being resolved that the Metro City Council move forward on the food truck ordinance, and we've had several meetings. Our most recent meeting was in November of 2023, where we requested a redraft of the food truck ordinance to this point, where the City Council is requesting that we establish the board of health as the board that would provide food truck licenses for one day events and special events so that they don't have to come before the city council and meet on the city council schedule and board of health or health department. So we do have a draft back and I will go to vice president Collins and then vice president Collins, you can guide us along the way.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I don't know why I'm. I'd like to go next. I think, you know, and I appreciate the work that went into this, but I really think that what the council's intent is to make the granting of food truck licenses for one day licenses and special event licenses an administrative task that does not require The to be brought to a council meeting does not require a public hearing and likely doesn't even require necessarily a public meeting. That's what we did for outdoor dining. The building commissioner has the authority. I think we would like. a staff member of the city to administratively have the authority to grant food truck licenses without all of this procedural rigmarole that we are, the issue that, the reason this is coming up is the issue is people were getting applications for food trucks in too late to us and we couldn't approve them in time for events. And I think the intent here is to make this an administrative task of a staff member and not a request requiring the approval of a public body in a public meeting. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I think Councilor Callahan asked what is always a good question, which is what do our neighbours do? And just from a quick search, I think that it looks like Somerville
[Zac Bears]: We shut down Riverside Ave. There's a ton of food trucks. We've never ordered any of that. So that's another thing that I'm just, you know, DPW has control of the public way to organize that event. There's just been a lot of past practice where for things like that, I don't think we want to make and create an onerous and rigorous process for having, you know, fried dough at Clipper Ship Day. So any other questions? comments from members of the council, go to Attorney Stein.
[Zac Bears]: Could you walk me through where in the ordinance there's a differentiation? I may just be missing it. Attorney Stein.
[Zac Bears]: But I think we're conflating two issues.
[Zac Bears]: Because this second point, are we conflating two so so but If there were to be a food truck to be hosted on school property, what you're saying is that under this draft, it would need the Board of Health to say, yes, you can have a food truck license. And then you'd also need to have whoever's under the custodian of the property to say, we will host the food truck here.
[Zac Bears]: So that's why I think we're conflating two different things. It seems like the sticking point here is that essentially we are saying, as a council, that second piece of the process we have not had anything to do with, to your point, because it is not relevant to our ordinances, right? All we are doing is approving a food truck license. I guess, and I think we're just getting into the weeds here of who has custody and care and control of different city properties in a way that maybe we don't need to be getting into. I think all that we're saying is that we would like to no longer, the city council to not be responsible for the issuance of food truck licenses and for the health department to be responsible for the issuance of food truck licenses. And what I'm trying to get at is it seems like you're saying, Councilor, that there's a sticking point there because if we wanted to delegate all that control, technically, we still have control of the public way. So if it's a food truck on the public way, it would still need to come back to us.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I'm going to go to Councilor Kiley in just a second. I think what the, from the previous meetings, what we're asking for is that the food truck license process, that the health department be able to issue one time and special event food truck licenses. Those are the only licenses for food trucks that we want to allow at this time. If they need permission from the custodian of public property, they would ask whoever the custodian of a specific property is to make sure that the food truck is allowed. And that when it comes to the public way, we do not want them to have to come to us for a food truck in the public way. They could go to the DPW, essentially.
[Zac Bears]: I guess, and this is where it's breaking down for me. Are you saying that under the existing regime that whoever is the custodian of another public property could issue unlimited food truck licenses on their own without the approval of the council or without an ordinance establishing those licenses as part of the city code?
[Zac Bears]: I'm sorry. The zoning code regulates what the Medford public schools could do on school property?
[Zac Bears]: Right, they wouldn't need to ask us.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, sure, and then I'm gonna go to Councilor Callahan and Councilor Collins, but yeah, Councilor Schripper.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Callahan?
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I guess I'll try, maybe, unless you're ready.
[Zac Bears]: I guess, Attorney Stein, my question is, it seems like the intent of the council is to, whether it's public or private property, whoever is the custodian or has care and control of the property, our intent ideally would be to, through whatever ordinance or zoning amendment, to say that a designee, right now we're calling it the health department, would issue a food truck license, only limited to a one day license or a special event license, regardless of what property it's on, whether it's public property, private property or the public way, is what you're saying is that we legally can't do that.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. I mean, I guess I have two questions here. Our existing process is that basically anytime anyone on any type of property wants to use a food truck, the council approves a food truck license. Okay. Is that not the process?
[Zac Bears]: Right. Let me see if I can pull up the most recent example of this in the records. Mr. President, just a second, Councilor Scarpelli. I just want to see if we can find this here. So we got a dear, dear President Morello and members of the city council. This is September 21st, 2023. The council records for our meeting of October 3rd, 2023. On behalf of the below entity, I respectfully submit to the city council the following request for a food truck permit of the city of Medford. In addition to city council approval, vendors are.
[Zac Bears]: It was coming to you. Just a second Councilor. I'd like to answer my question first.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Councilor Stroud, probably then Councilor Collins and Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: There's a motion of Councilor Scarpelli to table. It was undebatable. Is there a second?
[Zac Bears]: Hearing no second, I'll go to Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just want to, I think we can actually get to the crux of, I'm starting to wrap my head around it a little bit, I think. And I think where my sticking point was, was that our past practice does not seem to be grounded in any sort of legal authority that anyone can find. So essentially, we've been granting pointless permits with no authority for some period of time, at the request of the, you know, under multiple mayoral administrations to multiple councils, mayors have been requesting that the council approve things. that need need to be requested nor needed to be approved, which actually means that we have no regulation on this other than on the public ways, which is the council has to control things in the public ways, which I don't think is a status quo that any of us wants to maintain as a status quo. Um, so attorney sign if if I may. And please, when I'm, it seems to me there's three things here, that the council could create a use of the food truck under the Zoning Act to regulate where and which districts food trucks can be used on private property, and we could make them by right or by special permit by some authority of a board.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: Right, and that would be creating a use and then what district the uses would be in and what authority, you know, we could say that a special permit of the council is required in every district for the use of a food truck and that would regulate all private property in the city that falls under the zoning ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: Okay and then on the public way the council controls the public way so we we could right now under the existing ordinance potentially with some modification to address the very specific concern about the sale of fruit um we could pass an ordinance to say you have to get a license or permit of some kind from the council or its designee on the public way.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And then there seems to be this third, I think I get it on both ends of that. There's a third kind of middle area, and I'll throw in what you just said about exempt uses. So basically, like the Dover uses might also fall into this weird middle ground where public property that is not under the care and control of the council, the council does not have the authority to say that basically, right, like, I get where it would work on a public way, I get where it would work on a private property that is not exempt from zoning. I think what we were trying to thread the needle on was that on those other properties, we still only want to allow one day and special event licenses for food trucks. And it seems like what you're saying is that by your analysis of the law, that the sanitary code can't do that. All that the health department can say is, oh, this is a safe, this is a healthy food truck. They can serve food. And then it would be up to the exempt property owner, for example, Tufts University, or the public property owner, custodian that is not the city council, for example, the school committee for Medford Public Schools property that they could determine that they could have food trucks at times other than one day or special events.
[Zac Bears]: And okay, so that's exempt use private property that may be exempt from the zoning route. For the properties that are not under the control of the city council, but are city owned, or state owned, for example, and then we can go down another avenue to state owned but city controlled because we have some of those. Is there a legal authority that we can find to say that we only want one day and special event food trucks to be licensed?
[Zac Bears]: And then where we would run into some issues on the zoning side of things, we can't designate the board of health as a special permit granting authority, right?
[Zac Bears]: I think where we were potentially not entirely accurate was that we had assumed that we had the authority blanket, similar to how we do for other licenses to grant a food truck license, and that that would apply on all property in the city, regardless of its status of ownership or control.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. For me to give to you probably the easiest way to find this information, and we could maybe go deeper, but if you go to our MuniCode site and you just type in food truck and you go to the documents, you should be able to see records going back 10 plus years. Some of them will have records of the meetings where we've been having a conversation about this, but a lot of them are requesting that the city council approve food trucks you know, there's one for 2018 here, 2017.
[Zac Bears]: So if you go through the documents tab, so there's codes, ordinances and documents, there should be documents that should have like 68. uh, results next to it. I can happily send you the link too, but.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. And then that searches all of the records council records.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. So we have, um, yeah. There's a bunch of things in here that may be of value. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I'm not aware of prior legal opinions, but I'm sure you probably know better than I that if there were any, that Janice Spencer in the law department would probably be able to find them. But I'm not aware, and Councilor Schaer probably has dropped off, so I don't know if he has specific... Yeah. Okay, was that a motion, Councilor Collins? And I appreciate everyone's indulgence. I just wanted to kind of put the legal authority into boxes so that we don't have to have this discussion again as best as possible.
[Zac Bears]: I think we could just collaborate with Attorney Stein.
[Zac Bears]: No, we were just saying that maybe we could sit down outside of a public meeting. Sure. Council Vice President and I and you and just kind of see in structure here that meets the now relatively, I think shared as best as possible understanding of the fact that we're coming at this, addressing this food truck problem requires different legal authority for different settings.
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. Any further discussion or motions? Councilor Collins, Vice President Collins? He's not.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I just want to also say that I was kind of thick headed on this last meeting and I appreciate Attorney Stein's diligence and getting through my thick head about what this actually means. I was just like, why can't we just do what we've been doing? And it's because what we've been doing has no basis in reality. So on the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Sixth regular meeting, Medford City Council, March 19th, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Six present, one absent. Please rise to salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records. Records, the records of the meeting of March 12th, 2024 are passed to Councilor Leming. Councilor Leming, how did you find the records?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming found the records in order and moves approval.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Reports of committees, 23-449. Offered by Councilor Lazzaro, public health and community safety. Committee report, March 12th, 2024. Councilor Lazzaro, if you could give a quick update and let us know if we should move this forward.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to approve the report, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 24-033, offered by Vice President Collins, Planning and Permitting Committee report. We met last week on Wednesday, March 13th to kick off our zoning reforms with the Innes Associates and Barbroski Silverstein team. So super exciting times ahead of us for probably like 20 to 24 public meetings in this council on zoning reform over the next 18 months, which should be very exciting. Any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: We did the first half, that was the first time in 60 years.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callaghan to approve the committee report. All those in favour? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 24-015, offered by Councilor Leming, Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee report, March 13th. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you, that's the report. Thank you, Councilor Leming. A motion of Councilor Leming. Mr. President. Yes, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor say on the motion of Council. Let me to approve the committee report seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes 24 to 0458 Cambridge Health Alliance 1 Cabot Road special permit for medical office use public hearing notice. Medford City Council 1 Cabot Road March 19th 2024. The Medford City Council shall conduct a public hearing on March 19th 2024 at 7 PM in the Medford City Council Chamber on the second floor of Medford City Hall. 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford MA, and via Zoom. The Zoom link to the public hearing will be posted no later than 48 hours prior to the meeting. The applicant, Cambridge Health Alliance, is seeking a special permit subject to site plan review to establish a medical office used within an existing building at 1 Cabot Road, located in the Office O Zoning District. Plans for this project may be viewed in the Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability, City Hall Room 308, or on the city's website at https://www.medfordma.org community-development-board by clicking on current CD board filings. If you need a reasonable accommodation to attend or participate in this meeting, please contact Francis Nwaje, 781-393-2439 at Nwaje at medford-ma.gov. So what we will do is we will hear from a presentation by the proponent Cambridge Health Alliance, and then it will open the public hearing for us to hear from members of the public in favor or against, or who have questions about the project.
[Zac Bears]: You might need to press the button just once. There you go. It's not going to give you a really great read. Try again. Okay, I have the green light now.
[Zac Bears]: This is the system of the 19th.
[Zac Bears]: A New Deal WPA project. Fantastic.
[Zac Bears]: You don't get marble anymore.
[Zac Bears]: Looks like we're giving Paul access now. And I will say, feel free to give a presentation summary, and then we can go to the Councilors for questions, and they may refer to some of your slides.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: We don't have them. I can, we do have them, but I can recognize them. Danielle, if you could just share the conditions or if there are any highlights from the conditions that we're CD board recommended.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I don't think I don't think we need to read all of them. I think if there's just highlights of any senior planner, Evans thinks we should be aware. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Senior Planner Evans. Any further questions by members of the Council? All right. At this time, I'm going to open the public hearing to anyone who wants to speak in favor, against, or otherwise about this project. Are you in favor of the project? I'm guessing it's a yes.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. And if you could just give folks, if anyone wants to come to the podium to speak regarding this project, they're welcome to do so or raise your hand on Zoom. Let me give it a second. Seeing none, the public hearing is closed. Are there any motions on the floor? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve. Second. With the conditions of the Community Development Board by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 16 affirmatives, none of the negative one absent. The motion passes and the special permit is approved.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, to suspend the rules to take paper 24-053, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favour? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 24-053, be it resolved, offered by Councilor Scarpelli, be it resolved that the Medford City Council invite the leadership team from the Medford Fire Department to discuss the well-being of our fire personnel during a difficult few weeks of major fires and other outside distractions. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Just want to, really quickly, do we know if the interim chief is expected? I don't think so, no. Okay. Any other questions or discussion by councillors before we go to members of the public? Seeing none, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you. Thank you. Do you have a motion? Do you need any clarification on it? All right. And I just have a question and a, you know, Just when we do the tours, are you going to coordinate with or inform the interim chief? Yes, yeah, absolutely. Thank you so much. I just want to make sure I was going to do that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no, I know.
[Zac Bears]: And I just want to say again, we met on the budget earlier. We've had multiple DPW commissioners in here, police chiefs, heads of every department talking about just the systemic decline in staffing and resources for every department and school system since Proposition 2.5 went into effect in 1980. So we're well aware of the systemic underfunding of all parts of city government due to the a hard limit of 2.5% on the total city tax levy, and we know that it impacts every department. So, you know, we've seen that and you've seen that firsthand as well, and it really just hurts the ability of city government to provide effective basic services like fire prevention, or effective planning, or public health, or enforcing basic code enforcement, never mind public education, public safety. So appreciate you bringing that information as well. It's helpful for us to just see what the impact has been going from 160 down to 125 is huge. And DPWs in a similar place, and they've gone from 150 in the late 70s down to, only about 50 people a day. So it's when people, when you look around and you see a crumbling fire station or a crumbling sidewalk or just not having enough staff to keep up, it really is because of Proposition 2.5 and the fact that the city doesn't have enough revenue to meet basic needs.
[Zac Bears]: It's just the data. Thank you so much. Any further discussion? There's a motion on the floor by Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by Councilor Scarpelli, as seconded by Councilor Tseng. I'll open it up to members of the public if you'd like to speak. Ms. Diesso, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Ms. Diaz.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Yeah, I mean, that's fine. I'm sure we can amend that, but you may need to ask your colleagues as well. Yeah, well, I mean, it's just an invitation.
[Zac Bears]: We can invite all elected officials in the city. That'd be good.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Move the question, Mr. President. Any further comment by members of the council, members of the public? Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: There was a 2018 effort by the council. There was also a fire task force led by Paul Holian in 2021 that had a report on this new website. I think so, yeah. Yeah, that might be it.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And there have been several projects funded by the CPA.
[Zac Bears]: We've been told that Mr. Buck was communicated that they're using DLR.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I will note that there have been a number of projects funded for fire stations by the CPA, and they're currently working on the Salem Street Fire Station as well. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by Councilor Scarpelli, and seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favour? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, 24054. Schedule, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, to suspend the rule to take 24054, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. President. Give me one second. I've got to read it.
[Zac Bears]: Be it resolved that the Medford City Council move to schedule a committee of the whole meeting dealing with the civil service process for the Medford Fire Chief position. We have requested that meeting and the Mayor has requested a time delay on that meeting. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: The clerk has noted to me that that paper has already been disposed of into committee, so we can't take action on it tonight since it's already in committee. Any further discussion? We need to dispose of this paper. Is there anything else on this paper?
[Zac Bears]: So we'll send this resolution to the mayor. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. 2-2, that was the only other paper under suspension.
[Zac Bears]: We're back. 22-494 Budget Ordinance. The latest draft of the Budget Ordinance was reported out of the Administration of the Finance Committee on February 27, 2024, for consideration by the full Council, and a copy is attached to this packet. This was tabled from last week's meeting, and this is the Budget Ordinance that we've been working on for over a year now. 22-494 came in at the end of 2022. We've had extensive negotiations with the administration to define by ordinance requirements for a transparent, collaborative, and accountable budgeting process for the city. And this budget ordinance would establish a new chapter in the city ordinances, finance. It would move a couple of items from Division 5 of Chapter 2 administration to the new chapter, but would not make any changes to them. And then the new Article 5 outlines the annual budget process. And the first piece of that is quarterly financial reports and meetings. The finance director will provide a written report regarding the city's finance to the city council on a quarterly basis, no later than 60 days after the end of each quarter of the fiscal year, containing the accounts payable warrant, year-to-date budget to actuals report unaudited. and where available updates on state certifications, revenue forecasts, spending forecasts, and other information deemed relevant. The city council will hold subcommittee meetings no later than 60 days after the end of the second and third quarters, so that would be the end of September or the end of December, to review these documents, to ask questions, and the finance director would be there to attend and present the report and answer questions. Now we're getting into the budget process, which we've already started this year. Traditionally, we've been very lucky to get a budget at the end of May, usually the beginning of June, sometimes the middle of June, once without a full binder in the past four years.
[Zac Bears]: Now, through this negotiation, we are starting the process March 1, so we just had, over the past two weeks, two meetings for this Council to discuss budget recommendations, which we will be sending to the Mayor this week by a deadline of March 22 of each year, and then the Mayor will review those and respond in writing prior to presenting her budget. We're going to start holding preliminary budget meetings with city departments April 15th to May 15th. These will include the mayor or designee, finance director or designee, and the relevant department heads. They'll provide the estimated budget allocation for Medford Public Schools as well. No later than 72 hours prior to the first preliminary budget meeting. The Mayor, Finance Director, designees will provide the total preliminary expected general fund revenue for the upcoming fiscal year to the City Council. So that includes our property tax levy, local receipts, state aid, which we were discussing earlier. So we'll have that no later than 72 hours prior to the first budget meeting. No later than 72 hours prior to any budget meeting. for the specific departments, we will get the annual operating budget for the previous year, the annual operating budget request for the upcoming fiscal year, requested new staff programs and services for the upcoming fiscal year, and we will have that now by department in advance of the final presentation by the mayor of her comprehensive budget proposal, which she will send in to the city council no later than May 31st of each year. They'll make a comprehensive presentation of that proposal at the meeting, which is first considered. And the city council can request additional budget meetings after that. The mayor may also, finance director or department heads may also request budget meetings after that point. So if we want to come back to a budget where we had a discussion in April or May. And it has now looking very different in June. We have the authority to do that. They can also, if they want to bring someone back that we haven't asked for, they can do that. And the comprehensive budget proposal will include what we're generally used to with the general fund, the expected property tax revenue, state net state aid, local receipts, and the operating budget for each department. One new thing that we're going to be getting is that the total proposed expenses for each department are going to be split. They're not going to be split, but we're going to be able to see what is increasing due to fixed costs, such as union contracts, inflation, etc., and then what's actually something new in the budget. So if there's a new staff member, a new program, or a new expense. So that'll be helpful. as well. And then finally, the inclusion of all the enterprise funds, capital improvement plans, revolving funds, and grant funds. Currently, this ordinance requires an annual report by the mayor, finance director, or designee, and a meeting no later than November 30th on their progress to including these in the budget proposals. And then there's one other section which goes into a little bit more detail on the annual budget needs assessment, something that was really desired by this council and has been, is understanding what our long-term operating and capital expense needs are. And we don't have a list, for example, what would it cost to bring all of the city buildings into a state of good repair. We have some stuff on that on roads and sidewalks, but that's becoming out of date, hasn't been updated in three years. So the administration said that they just were not able at the current resource level to create those documents. So we have required that they provide an annual report on how they plan to get us to a resource level where we can have that information so that we can make informed decisions about the city's operating and capital budget needs. And that's pretty much, I didn't read word by word, I can go back, but the first article goes into effect upon passage, and then the annual budget needs assessments goes into effect January 1 of 2025.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Any further discussion? Any motions on the floor? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve the ordinance for first reading, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Any further discussion? Any discussion by members of the public? You can raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium here in the chamber. Seeing none, on the motion of Councilor Tseng, as seconded by Councilor Lazzaro to approve the ordinance for first reading, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes and the ordinance is approved for first reading. 24-047 offered by Councilor Leming. Resolution to request that Medford's linkage fees be updated. Whereas Medford Municipal Code 94-10.136, 94-10.236, 94-10.336, and 94-10.436 state the formula for linkage fees for parks and recreational facilities, police and fire facilities, Roads and traffic facilities and water and sewer facilities shall be subject to recalculation no more than three years after the effective date of this provision, and no more than every three years thereafter by the Community Development Board after public notice of the public hearing based on the methodology and analysis established as a result of reports, documentation, and information prepared by the Office of Community Development, whereas the Medford's linkage fee structure were uniquely established by a home rule petition in 1989, chapter 488, quote, an act establishing linkage exaction program in the city of Medford. The act, which states the following, the level of any exaction shall be reviewed at least every three years and reset as required based upon the recommendation of the Office of Community Development and Mayor of said city, whereas none of these fees have been updated by the Community Development Board since 1990, bringing Medford out of compliance with the act, whereas the current linkage fee schedule, having not been updated since 1990, has been devalued by the effects of inflation, whereas the studies required to calculate these exactions are often expensive, and infeasible to recalculate every three years, then automatically escalating linkage fee schedules subject to periodic review could be preferable to recalculating linkage fees every three years via a new study, whereas Medford's Office of Community Development has now merged with the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability, be it therefore resolved that the Medford City Council formally request that the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability and the Community Development Board update the formula for its linkage fees to an appropriate amount, and that the City Clerk send this request to members of the Community Development Board with a request for official confirmation of its receipt, We had further resolved that the Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability and the Community Development Board provide a report to the Medford City Council on their willingness and ability to comply with this current request by May 2024, and if so, their expected timeline to its completion. We had further resolved that the Medford City Council request that the study include a progressive formula for linkage fee updates such that a new study every three years is not necessarily required for the review process. Is there a little more?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, good. Yeah. And I just wanted to note. Just in terms of what's listed here, the office of planning development, sustainability is still acting as the office of community development where defined by state law or ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming, seconded by to approve, seconded by Councilor Callaghan to approve. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Councilor Tseng and then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you and I appreciate that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further comment?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it is. So we haven't met yet, but we are having an interesting so I know that my my thousands of emails, I'm having a meeting at some point.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And the latest act for, I don't know what this is. Stopping that.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Thank you. So we have a motion approved by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Leming as amended by Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan seconded as amended by Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. And just to put out there, the fiscal 2022 act for city linkage funds, 163,305 went to Crystal Campbell Peace Garden. Cool. Say that again, Mr. President? For last year? This is for fiscal 22. Okay, right, okay.
[Zac Bears]: Right, no, yeah. The $95,000 went for park design, forest, the Medford Square, the Salem Street Cemetery, and the adjacent recreational space. $20,000 to update the open space and recreation plan. It does seem to be relatively. There was a balance of $760,000 in the linkage account. It's less than, sorry, go ahead, Council Member.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming seconded by Councilor Kelly and as amended by Councilor Scarpelli. Any further discussion members of the council. Discussion by members of the public. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, is that through the chair? I mean, do you have an answer to that question at this time?
[Zac Bears]: Less than that.
[Zac Bears]: That is within Southeastern Medford and then outside Southeastern Medford, it's 3,851 per unit. Okay, Southeastern is the most expensive. By 50 bucks, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: It's generally, it's spent on the purposes outlined, which did we already read those? It's parks and recreational facilities, police and fire facilities, road and traffic facilities, and water and sewer facilities. And then the act also allows for affordable housing, but the city did not enable that in 1990. But you're adding it now? That's a further resolution, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Fiscal 22 audited, $760,000. Total?
[Zac Bears]: There was $160,000. And that's not enough to get that done?
[Zac Bears]: not aware of the current construction timeline for the Crystal Campbell Garden. You could call the facilities manager or DBW.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. There would be a public hearing and a public meeting by the Community Development Board on any proposed change to the linkage fee.
[Zac Bears]: No, we are asking them to give us a timeline.
[Zac Bears]: You can call the city clerk, go to the city clerk's office, go on the city website, events calendar, or call the Office of Planning and Development and Sustainability or look at their website.
[Zac Bears]: Is that in? No, that's not in here. The office was renamed in 2021, and as it is a city department, it is technically under the direction of the mayor, through the director of the department.
[Zac Bears]: No.
[Zac Bears]: The title has already been changed. The ordinance does not reflect the updated title.
[Zac Bears]: As a legal entity, the Office of Community Development still exists as part of the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability. It's just a name change for the purposes of public view. There's a number of enabling acts at the state level that reference Office of Community Development, including the act creating the Office of Community Development. So wherever in the state code that is referenced, Alicia Hunt is the Director of Community Development. and that office is the Office of Community Development pursuant to state law and local ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Council Member Leming. Any further discussion by members of the Council or the public? Seeing none, on the motion of Councilor Leming, as seconded by Councilor Callahan, as amended by Councilor Scarpelli, are we still there? All right. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 24-056, offered by Councilor Leming, a resolution to bring Medford's linkage fee ordinances in compliance with the state's act establishing the ordinance. Is there a motion that I can summarize this rather than read the same details again? That motion is summarized. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Councilors, are all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. The linkage fee structure was established by a home rule petition. And our codes say this needs to keep happening. So the request is that we update the city code to change Community Development Board. Am I reading the right one here?
[Zac Bears]: Got it, okay. This is in compliance with the State Act. Bring Medford's linkage to compliance with the State Act. Be it therefore resolved that the Medford City Council update the Medford Municipal Code 94-10 to change the Community Development Board to the Mayor and the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability. Be it further resolved that the Medford City Council update the Medford Municipal Code 94-10 to change the language from no more than every three years to at least every three years. Councilor Lemmie.
[Zac Bears]: Let's see. MuniCode is showing that it says different things.
[Zac Bears]: No worries if it's not quickly accessible. It just was for my edification.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor loving to send paper to 4056 to the Administration and Finance Committee, seconded by Council is our Oh, any further discussion by members of the Council.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Kiley. Any further discussion by members of the Council? On the motion of Councilor Leming to refer to the Administration and Finance Committee, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes 24-057. Resolution to add affordable housing to the linkage fee structure of Medford, offered by Councilor Leming, whereas Medford's linkage fee structure was uniquely established by a home-run petition in 1989, chapter 0488, an act establishing linkage exaction program in the city of Medford, whereas an act establishing linkage exaction program in the city of Medford allows for the funding of affordable housing, quote, the linkage ordinance shall only be used, shall be used solely for the purposes of defraying the cost of capital improvements provided to the city, caused by, if you don't mind, cost by the necessary support future development such as but not limited to the following capital improvements to school facilities, public facilities, roads, sewers, water supply lines, affordable housing, child care facilities, job training facilities, public safety service and facilities and parks, playgrounds and other recreational facilities, whereas the implementation of This in meant for municipal code 94 dash 10 only allocated linkage fees for parks and recreational facilities, police and fire facilities, roads and traffic facilities and water and sewer facilities, and not for affordable housing, whereas in 2023 pursuant to general law chapter 44 section 55 C. The city of Medford established an affordable housing trust as a tool to combat the ongoing housing shortage, and there is the need for long-term sustainable revenue streams to fund this trust, whereas on the topic of home prices, the housing production plan published in September 2022 and prepared by the Office of Planning and Urban Sustainability makes the need for affordable housing very clear. Quote, Medford has seen some of the highest price increases of any community in Massachusetts. There's currently a $280,000 gap between what a household earning the median income could afford and the median sales price for a single family home. of single family homes are considered affordable to households earning Medford median income. Be it therefore resolved that Medford City Council update Municipal Code 94-10 to establish a fifth linkage bus bucket for the Affordable Housing Trust. Be it resolved that this resolution be referred to committee for further discussion. Councilor Leming. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: the Administration Finance Committee and to request that the Planning and Development Sustainability Office include a linkage fee for affordable housing in their proposed study of linkage fee updates, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any discussion by members of the Council? I saw Councilor Scarpelly.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I think the good thing is, because it was never established, it would actually be an additional item. It wouldn't be splitting the existing funds and be adding another item with a specific fee for the use. So it wouldn't be dividing. Any further discussion? Councilor Lemmie.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, on the motion of Councilor Leming to refer to the Administration and Finance Committee, seconded by Councilor Tseng, any discussion by members of the public?
[Zac Bears]: It's Kit Collins, she's not here tonight. Okay, thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. And yes, you know, co-ops will be one of the forms of housing ownership that could be funded by the City's Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. The key thing to getting up and going is, of course, capital need. So there needs to be some funding on the front end. Any further discussion on the paper by members of the Council or members of the public?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that person put their video up and was doing strange things with their video, and we just had a Zoom bombing incident, so I'm not going to let them on video. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Um, just a if you have any information on people who are violating the deep restrictions on affordable housing, the city would certainly want to hear that. We do keep a registry along with the state when housing units are created in developments like the Monera development or the Lumiere development. They are legally required to have deed-restricted affordable housing. That is, there's a definition. The city ordinance defines it as housing units set aside exclusively for low or moderate income renters or buyers that remain affordable through long-term restrictions. So the deeds that are on file at the registry of deeds, those properties, whether it's the land or the units, are deed-restricted to a certain level of affordability. One of those levels, generally the highest level, is what's called 80% of AMI. That's 80% of the area median income, which nowadays for a household of four is about $80,000. There's also lower restrictions at 50% of AMI and 30% of AMI, so lower amounts than that. For laws, for example, like the 40B law, which the state has enabled and allows developers when a city doesn't have enough affordable housing relative to what the state requires, that requires the developers to build 25% of the units at 80% of the area median income, so that's where that 80,000 number comes from these days.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other comments by members of the public before we come back to Mr. Castagnetti? All right, Mr. Castagnetti, two more minutes.
[Zac Bears]: That is not true. One of them on Mystic Avenue was withdrawn by the proponent. They then proposed a life science project. They were going to go through the planned development district process, but now they want an overlay district. I would guess because of the life sciences market that they're probably not going to come and build that. The Mystic Valley Parkway 40B has approvals from the Zoning Board of Appeals, and I believe the 760 Fellsway is also almost done going through the Zoning Board of Appeals process. Now, did that process take too long? I would probably be on the side of saying yes, but that's the status of those three projects.
[Zac Bears]: The total of all three as originally proposed was 600 or 700. It's less than that now because one withdrew and the other two, the number of units were negotiated down.
[Zac Bears]: But it's sad. The shelters would have been open to anyone who is facing homelessness in the state. About half of the people of the 7,500 in the shelter system are from out of state. About half of them are from in-state.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor—where did we start here? Is Councilor LEMMING seconded by Councilor SANG? Councilor LEMMING.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming, and I do appreciate you bringing up the proposed option for the landlord tax exemption that was enabled by the state just last fall. We're one of the first cities considering implementing that. As we've noted many times when we're looking at this issue of housing, it's complicated, and we're trying to use every tool available to us under local authority from the state to address it. And one of them is looking at linkage, We've talked about the transfer fee. We've talked about the good, low, and lower tax credit. And I think just to the point made of supply and demand, how did we get here? There's really two things. It's what you were just talking about, which is the demand is higher than the supply that's allowed to be built. And therefore, the price of an individual unit's going up. And it's something that I've learned from you and others about that commodification and financialization of housing as a financial asset and not as a public good. So you have not only is the demand of people who want to live in a place affecting the price of housing, the demand of the investors who want to make money off of a housing unit is affecting the demand on housing. And when you have both of those pushing on a string and you have a massive supply restrictions due to exclusionary zoning, you end up with a housing crisis, which is what we're living in in this region and in most major urban regions in this country. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: I thought my tone was negative. No, I agree.
[Zac Bears]: It would have been a benefit. 150, not 60. What was it? I'm sorry. What about 150? Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, because we because it was 40. Right. You're right. So, yeah, it's a huge, huge loss. I think Fells Way is still happening, but the Mystic Valley Parkway one is not in good shape. This is our leader.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Barr. You can have 60 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: I can be cheaper.
[Zac Bears]: Go.
[Zac Bears]: I'm getting, I'm being criticized.
[Zac Bears]: at Wellington, yes. This has been a very generous 60 seconds. I think we get your point.
[Zac Bears]: Air rights at Wellington, air rights at the development of Mystic Ave needs to be improved.
[Zac Bears]: You should find 14 other people and put that on the agenda, please. 50 stories. I know, I'm just saying. We need public support. Thank you, Mr. Cassinetti. Any further discussion on the motion? All in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. 24-052. Let me get it out. It's the last one. I hope so. be resolved that the city council invite the superintendent of schools and the acting finance director from the school district to inform the council on budget shortfalls for fiscal 2024. There was an update posted by member Reinfeld that last week's school committee budget meeting, the $2.5 million potential projected shortfall has been reduced to $216K. The contributing factors include an allocation for contracted payments across fiscal years, state funding reimbursements, the projected ESSER balance, correcting an error in the projection formula, and redistribution of expenses from general to revolving accounts. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I for one, don't recall member Rousseau blaming the council for lack of funding. And I believe that the school has extensively put forward resolutions requests that the mayor appropriate funding in a different way. Um, I will say, I do agree with you. that if you don't know an answer, you probably shouldn't say it out loud. And they clearly didn't know what their deficit was. And when they had said $2.5 million, and then they actually do the research and the work, and they find that the number is not that, that is a mistake that someone should be held accountable for, because you have released inaccurate and incomplete information. $2.5 million, big number. It's 3.5% of the school department budget. At least the general fund allocation is $70 million. I work on smaller budgets, but to say that there couldn't be double counting or a misallocation of two, three, 4% that you then do the research into and discover and find and eliminate, that's pretty standard. What I wouldn't have done is go and tell my boss that it was a 4% deficit before I knew it was a 4% deficit and freak everyone out about it before I actually knew the facts. up in the below. That doesn't make it right. Any further discussion by members of the council on the resolution? That's terrible. Seeing none, members of the public, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Um, he was the proponent of the resolution.
[Zac Bears]: for the school department?
[Zac Bears]: There's currently an interim or acting finance director, the assistant superintendent for finance and operations left.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I believe they got a promotion to a job in Cambridge.
[Zac Bears]: We do not do any governance over the school system. The school committee does that.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not an accountant. I do finance and operations work, but I'm not a CPA.
[Zac Bears]: Some of them have happened on an ad hoc basis, but there's never been a formal schedule in the city ordinance to mandate that they happen at a specific time.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. And if you were to file a request, it is accessible information. They would have to give it to you. But it should be a more established schedule than that. I think in terms of the trust, I agree.
[Zac Bears]: We're a few months behind now on the Warren articles. Yeah, I think we're September or October. um does that seem does that seem an important amount of time to you um i mean we requested that they come in every month the explanation that we've received is that there were other obligations that the staff member who was going to do that had to take on and i'm not going to question that that may well be true but to me that's in a statement that there's not enough staff to do the job and i would hope that that would be addressed and the council has been really insistent about needing more staff and logistical infrastructure support for the finance department because we need them to do more for us to be able to plan effectively.
[Zac Bears]: Larry, do you have a copy of the packet over there? I can give you mine. I have one right here. Yeah, it's in the agenda that went around on Friday. I have a copy here. If you have one available, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I will just say in terms of priorities. That is the ordinance we've met on most in committee the past year to get the administration to agree with whether not everyone on this council last June agreed with it, but the former president and I did work with the administration to get them to commit to passing that ordinance. And to, we did, George, and it took nine months, but here we are.
[Zac Bears]: Well, they're in the budget. Well, we got them in the budget. Now, I can't hire anybody. I'd love to hire someone, but it's not in my current authority. I can't make or hire someone, but it's in the budget. But it is a major priority. Right before this meeting, we had a meeting at six o'clock on what our top three priorities are for this upcoming budget. And one of those three was that the administration tell us how they're going to get more finance staff or update the finance software so that we have more information than we have before. I'm hopeful that this budget ordinance and it's really a budget ordinance with also a regular financial reporting component to it, will create a regular schedule where we can say, hey, you said you'd pre-promise us it's in the law, the law of the city is you have to get us this by the state, and that that will break any sort of log jam, or at least maybe adjust and reshuffle the priorities where they may be prioritizing some other work for them to prioritize this because it is in the city ordinance. And I did get your email, I just haven't had a chance to respond.
[Zac Bears]: I'm cutting it down.
[Zac Bears]: There's also on the Medford public schools you YouTube channel. There's a recording of the, their budget committee of the whole meeting from last week, where they did the law probably got into the details a little bit more than on the school budget side, generally how the process works is for the city. budget city departments that are not meant for public schools. The mayor makes a proposal, the department heads meet, and we're changing this a little bit, but essentially we as the council meet with the department heads, the mayor makes an allocation, we discuss that and make recommendations, and all that we can do is say yes, say no, or cut. And if we say no without making a specific cut, it actually goes into effect after 45 days anyway. So the mayor has a lot of authority there. The school committee side of things is a little more involved, and that's because of how it works under state law. But under that, the school committee actually makes a proposal as a body. So they discuss all the details. They approve the specific line items of the specific departments. Then that recommendation goes to the mayor. She then proposes a number that may be different from what the school committee has recommended. And then our role is only to approve, cut, or reject the total amount. We cannot go into the school budget in any way. And like, we couldn't say we want 100,000 less for Spanish class. You know, all of that authority is with the school committee. So we have a little bit less of a role in terms of the specifics of the school budget. Our main role is just whether to approve or cut the mayor's recommendation.
[Zac Bears]: Essentially, yes.
[Zac Bears]: And we can say no, but again, after 45 days, the State Division of Local Services.
[Zac Bears]: It goes into effect anyway, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's, it's, she's in charge of the budget. Yeah, I can say, yeah. The mayor, the office of the mayor, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for coming back. Any further discussion on the motion? On the motion of Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to receive and place on file by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. Public participation. Anyone may participate on any issue at this time. Seeing none. on the motion of Councilor Tseng to adjourn seconded by Councilor Kelly and all those in favour. I oppose motion passes meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Committee of the whole March 19 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the role.
[Zac Bears]: There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, MA, and via Zoom. To submit written comments, please email ahertabese at medford-ma.gov. Action and discussion items 24-045, offered by President Bears's resolution regarding annual budget process for fiscal year 2025. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the Council President request City Councilors submit individual budget recommendations to the City Clerk, by Friday, March 1st 2024 for consideration and committee of the whole being further resolved that based on the schedule included in the soon to be finalized budget ordinance, the city council and city administration will follow the following budget schedule for the fiscal 25 city budget. By March 1st, city councilors submit individual budget recommendations. By Friday, March 22nd, city council submits collective budget recommendation to the mayor. From April 15th to May 15th, city council holds preliminary budget meetings with department heads. and by Friday, May 31st, the mayor will submit a comprehensive budget proposal to the city council. Part of the budget ordinance, just to further elucidate the process that we're going through here, this new budget process, once we have submitted those recommendations to the mayor, we will get a response in writing prior to the presentation of the comprehensive budget proposal. In addition, when we hold the preliminary budget meetings, we will have the annual operating budget for the previous year, the department head's budget request for the upcoming fiscal year, and requested new staff and programs or services for the upcoming year. And we also should be getting the budget to actual paperwork that we have been talking about wanting for a while. So we will have all of that in advance of our preliminary budget meetings. which will start in April, and I'm working with the administration to lock down some days for those meetings. We have some April dates, and then we'll have some May dates. They will be mostly Wednesdays at 6 p.m. Committee of the Wholes. So we may avoid a Saturday meeting this year on the budget. We may not. No promises. One of the things that we talked about at our Committee of the Whole on March 6th was submitting, we talked about the recommendations that we had submitted, which should have gone back out to the Council and is available on our meeting portal, is all of those recommendations kind of grouped by category. I put them into four categories. One was preventing budget cuts, The second category was increases in staffing and personnel expenses. The third was increases in non-staffing and ordinary expenses. And the fourth was one-time expenses and items for further study. And then also included was just all of our recommendations in one document. I'm pretty sure mostly unedited. I may have made some edits to Councilor Tseng's because his came in memo form and I made some bullet points. I hope they satisfy what your intent was. Thank you. At this point, I think the goal of tonight's meeting is to report something out of committee to the mayor around collective recommendations of the City Council. We will also attach this document, which has everyone's individual recommendations. Councilor is saying, if you want me to attach your memorandum, I'm happy to attach that as well. But you put a lot of work into it. There's like an ink signature on it. Thesis. Thesis. Thesis. Application. Amendment. Constitutional amendment. So at this point, this is the first time. It's not the first time we've done this at all, but it's the first time we've done this under these kind of timelines. I believe last year we sent a set of five recommendations to the mayor for inclusion in the budget, and that seemed to be a reasonable number of kind of what we all collectively determined to be our top priorities. We could do something similar or different this year, but I do think there's a lot of value to kind of honing down this couple, two, three page list into something that is very clear about Council's wishes for this budget. And I'll leave it at that. I'll open it up to members of the Council to guide our path forward.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor say a health department or general recommendation around the Health Department Board of Health. Councilor Collins, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Sure, is that a motion, Councilor Collins?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins, do you need to repeat it yet? Could you repeat that for the clerk, please?
[Zac Bears]: Sure, we have a motion by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, discussion Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Collins, is that a new hand or an old hand?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Collins and Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: I think there are, and I'll go to Councilor Callahan after Councilor Sagan to say, I think there's kind of three principles getting lumped in here. One is we're talking about recommendations from independent entities, independent governing bodies, so the school committee for the public schools, the library trustees for the library. They make recommendations as to their budget in a different way than happens for the city departments. And then we're highlighting that there's a lot of ARPA grant-funded positions in health prevention and planning. And then the third piece, I think, is all grant-funded positions. So if there are grant-funded positions in police or fire or DPW, I'm not sure, you know, there may be one in police, there might be one in DPW, I'm not sure of any in fire. So I wonder if we could just adjust this wording to say, to more along those lines, to say, meet the recommendations of the school committee, budget request of the school committee for Medford Public Schools, the library trustees for the Medford Public Library, and do not cut any ARPA grant funded positions in any city department with particular focus on the, most of those positions are in health prevention and planning, development, sustainability, and then we have all city departments in there. And then through this process, we'll actually, I think for the first time in my time on the council, we'll actually be able to see what the chiefs requested, what the commissioner requested, so that'll be interesting, because usually we only get what the school committee and the library request, because they're independent. I'll go to Councilor Tseng and then Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Agreed. I'm going to try to write down this change. If we want to move to another recommendation, if this will be our first recommendation, and then I'll read back what I have once I've written down what everybody said.
[Zac Bears]: I'm hoping more open and honest. I hope so. Because I think we're starting before we get the final budget, which is good. And we put in the ordinance that we would get the requests of the departments. Now, if the departments are tailoring their requests prior to writing them, we can't control for that.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, before, I don't know entirely what level of detail some of that will be. The cherry sheet did come out from the state administration and finance and it's basically a level fund cherry sheet. for state aid, but yes, we would get a revenue update as well as a budget to actual update before maybe as the part of that first meeting. So yeah, that is the intent. That'll be helpful with everybody. That's great. And I'm hoping we will get the documentation in advance of the meeting, maybe by a week or two, maybe more. Thank you. And Q3 ends on the 31st, so maybe we'll get something that's just quarter two and maybe we'll get quarter three for that meeting.
[Zac Bears]: It'd be good. Agreed. So we have our first recommendation, which I'll read back in a minute. I just want to get the wording right around a level service budget and meeting certain requests and preventing certain cuts. Councilor Tseng raised the health department. There are some specific requests. Anyone else? We could go up to five recommendations. Obviously, the first one is needy, and I think addresses directly the concerning narrative about cuts and not having a level service budget, but there was a lot of other good stuff in here, so we have some room. I see Councilor Collins, and then if anyone else wants to chime in, Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Just, I have that as requesting a cost analysis from the DPW commissioner for in-house cement and hot tub equipment and staffing compared to the annual cost of bonding for sidewalk and street repair. Yes, thank you, that's perfect. Councilor Tseng, or did I have Councilor Callahan first?
[Zac Bears]: I believe we discussed it. I can't remember if a motion was referred out to the administration. So we can just put this as a motion coming out of here. Thank you. And maybe we can give it a paper number, Mr. Clerk.
[Zac Bears]: Right, can we separate this out as a separate, like a B paper? Great. And we can refer the response to Public Works. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, so would that be a requested amendment to the B paper that they also include a proposed
[Zac Bears]: And that's to ensure no delays in road repair?
[Zac Bears]: I believe they are also under study, and I do not know the timeline when we will receive that study. so they're all, the city solicitor, everything is still under study. My understanding is that everything, every position on the city side is undergoing a classification and compensation study by the call-in center, and we have not received a timeline when that will be submitted for updating the CAF ordinance, right? Thank you. So, and that's been going on a while now. I know that staff had a, City side staff had interviews with town center representatives last fall. Does that sound right to you?
[Zac Bears]: So it's been a pretty long process, and we haven't been given a clear timeline. And it has been used to justify not moving on certain things. So just so I have it correct right now, we have the B paper regarding some DPW costs. Then we have the recommendation for level service budget. We have a recommendation to increase the budgeted amount for city solicitor and assistant city solicitor. Do we want to get more specific? I know Councilor Tseng you had a health department item. Do you want to get more specific on that?
[Zac Bears]: And do you think that that is captured by the preventing cuts to grant funded positions?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Okay. So we've still got some room here. Personally, I would like to see something included around seed money as part of the budget or from free cash to create a clear plan for updating city financial software and payroll systems. I think that's a huge problem.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it does seem to be the source of many of our other mistrusts and disagreements.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. I mean, I think there's a both and here, and I think it's fine to update this to be a both and kind of question. My understanding is that there are multiple systems that have difficulty talking to each other and require a lot of work to make sure there's not double counting and things of that nature. We've suffered through that with the fiscal 20 pre-ARPA discussion, the schools just had another example of that where it was like, oh, we have a 2.5 million deficit, but then it's like, oh, when we go through, we look at double counting, we look at making sure everything's in the right account, it's not 2.5 million, it's 216,000, right? So we have these issues where maybe the expertise of prior staff or reasons that those weren't issues in the past, maybe they understood the software better, and maybe had been here when they established the, put that software into place. So I think it could be both, and I'm happy to, personally, I'd be more than happy, I think I had it in here. Study or consult and review of finance department, software upgrade, or this is Councilor Collins, software upgrade options and development implementation scenarios. which also talked about expanding the personnel budget, because maybe it is there's a bottleneck on the personnel side of just reviewing reports in a timely manner. That's great. So I think we could throw that in as well.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. The communication issues are twofold. It's the communication issues between people, and it seems to be also communication issues between systems.
[Zac Bears]: I'm writing them down and I'll send them to you. So I have three things. I'll go to Councilor Collins, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. So we have three that I can read back now. I don't think we have to go beyond three. These are pretty major issues around the budget. I think they do hit what a lot of us are concerned about. I'm just going to quickly look through what else we have here. I think a lot of these have value, and again, all of them will go up. But is there anything else that anyone else wants to include beyond the three main recommendations that we have before I read them back? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Any further discussion on this topic before I read back the motions? Seeing none, we have the main motion by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Collins, as amended by Councilors Scarpelli and Callahan for the fiscal year 25 council budget recommendations. First recommendation for a level service budget for the city of Medford, including meeting the Medford Public Schools funding recommendation of the Medford School Committee, the Medford Public Library funding recommendation of the Library Trustees, and maintaining all grant-funded city positions in every department with the acknowledgement that most of those grant-funded positions currently exist in the Board of Health, Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability, and Office of Planning and Outreach, or sorry, Office of Prevention and Outreach. The second recommendation is to increase the budgeted amount for the city solicitor salary by $49,871 per year and the assistant city solicitor salary by $37,178 per year to maintain competitiveness with neighboring communities. and the third is a recommendation that the administration appropriate seed money as part of the fiscal 25 budget or from free cash reserves to develop a clear plan and timeline for updating the city financial software and payroll systems or to hire additional staff to speed up timeliness of financial reporting updates, calculation of retroactive pay and other payroll and finance updates. and then there's a B paper by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng, as amended by Councilor Tseng, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we request a cost analysis from the DPW Commissioner for in-house cement and hot tub equipment and staffing, compared to the annual cost of bonding for sidewalk and street repair, and refer the response to the Council's Public Works and Facilities Committee, be it further resolved that DPW include a proposed budget for road signage, marking, and striping to speed up road repair. How they sound? Great. We'll take the B paper first on Councilor Scarpelli's B paper, seconded by Councilor Tseng. As amended by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative and none of the negative. The paper passes and is referred to the Mayor. On the main motion by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Collins, as amended by Councilors Callaghan and Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Negative motion passes and I will make sure that that gets to the mayor under some council letterhead. Any further discussion on the budget before we move on to our regular meeting?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to report the paper out of committee to the mayor. And can we add an adjourn? And adjourn. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. You say it out loud. I didn't hear Councilor Callahan. I'm very seriously, as the chair, up here with Zoom and the computer, a verbal second is very important. I missed an entire motion because there wasn't a verbal second last meeting. So on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Thank you, Emily. Thank you, Vice President Collins. Excuse me. I think this is a really great start. I think we have good buckets for all of the things that we want to talk about. I think a lot of the more specific policies that have come up. I'm looking at Councilor Callahan, some of the green score climate implementation. You know, we have climate resiliency discussion, Councilor Leming, the transportation demand, and some of the other things that Councilor Leming's put forward with transportation section. I think we're all really interested in, for the comprehensive plan, looking at major squares, connecting corridors, what our neighborhood residential streets. are looking at housing production plan goes into housing production, housing affordability. And then I think, you know, leading off with this, what I think in what is sometimes a, you know, we don't always have universal agreement on anything. I think the one thing we hear from everybody of every stripe is this economic development and business growth focus and wanting to see more commercial growth, more economic development, more business growth and building that up that part of the tax base. So I think really leading off with that discussion and making it clear that that is one of the pillars of this project and has been and continues to be one of the pillars of the work of this council. Is really great. I also think that the schedule is good. I think setting our goal of June 30th of next year is smart because I think we all know that things might take a little longer than that. And that gives us the 6 months at the end of the term. for those things that may inevitably take longer than this initial project plan. So I think it's a really good goal. I think we have this planning permitting committee meeting regularly, which gives us the venue. And I think we have a strong framework here of all of the issues that we want to tackle from the you know, fixes and implementation suggestions that have come from the zoning recodification that this council completed two years ago, and then all of the work that we want to do that uses that recodified zoning as a framework to make these policy and zoning changes. So I'm really excited for this project. I think this framework is really helpful. I think the timeline is really helpful, and I'm excited to work with my colleagues and the team and associates team to get it done, as well as our planning staff, building department staff, and the community. So thank you. I don't have any questions, but just wanted to put all that out there. I think this is a really strong start.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, seeing. Councilor Levee. Yep. I think it'd be great at this time if we could hear maybe from planning staff, maybe the building commissioner, just kind of hear your initial thoughts on what's been outlined.
[Zac Bears]: Or if you have questions, I want to give you space to chat. All right.
[Zac Bears]: Council President Bears. Thank you, yeah, and if I could just, I think we, and I think we're gonna make a few motions to this, or I'm gonna make a few motions to this effect once we've had discussion, but. I think like pretty much what Alicia just said is right. And I think it's like, let's take these buckets and say, you know, there's a lot of people we need to get input from a city team, council, you know, ZBA, people on different commissions. Let's have people communicate back through Daniel and Alicia. Like if there are, I know that for example, Councilor Callahan, you have some climate plan implementation items that you wanna work on. You have some things outside of the climate plan related to climate that you're interested in that are related to zoning. I think one of the motions that I'll make in a minute is that councilors submit, you know, within a couple of weeks to, and it doesn't mean that we can't come up with new things in the future, or if you think of something when we have the meetings, but submit like the different ideas that you think fall into one of the 10 or so buckets that were outlined earlier to the planning staff. And then as Alicia said, they can all be sorted. And I think similarly, I'm gonna make a motion to ask the building commissioner to have him and his team, as you're working through it every day, what's the list of specific issues that maybe the planning staff hasn't taken a look at yet or doesn't know about? Submit those to them and that can be added into the short, quick fix process. As well, I would like to personally send through the council, through the clerk, make a motion to send the same request to the zoning board and the community development board. I mean, I know that the staff of different departments works with those boards, but I think the members themselves may have some similar thoughts, especially around the quick fixes, but maybe in general around, you know, We don't permit a lot of ADUs right now, even though it's part of the zoning, or we run into constantly having appeals on these specific issues that don't really need to be appeals. So that's kind of, I think, how the process would be envisioned to work. So those discrete items would be incorporated, and then we could schedule out the meetings on those topics, go through. All right, we have on climate, we have a list of 14 things. And his associates team has been able to do some research on it. Here's the feedback, maybe even some draft language. We can then have the discussion here, comment, edit, and then eventually create zoning amendments out of each of those discrete items. And that's pretty much how we did, and correct me if I'm wrong, Alicia, how we worked with Mark Wabrowski on the recodification too. We took different major sections of the zoning ordinance. You know, we had a, talked about different pieces of it.
[Zac Bears]: And if I could, Mr. Chair, just if I could just add, I think something really important to add here is a lot of these areas are coming out of and specifically drawn from extensive planning processes that have already occurred that had extensive public process, shredding, focus groups, public meetings, dozens of public meetings, many of which I was part of. For Medford Square, we have, as I think Councilor Scarpellino has mentioned, we have several plans over several decades at this point. So when we have a meeting on major squares, When we have a meeting on Medford Square, we can finally take those many, many plans that never amounted to anything and turn those into action and take the best pieces of those that exist and put them into action. So that's just something really important here too. we're taking, I think, the sum of a lot of great work that has been ongoing, that has been worked out. You know, Councilor Caraviello and I did a ton of time on the comprehensive plan, and there's very specific zoning recommendations coming out of the comprehensive plan, the housing production plan, the climate plan, especially, and the different bike plans and some of the other more local neighborhood-focused plans, but taking those and and. Turning them into zoning language, I think is a big piece of this. I just think it's important to put that out there, too. We're outlining an extensive public process with dozens of public meetings ahead of us in this committee in the public hearings in the council, the public meetings of the Community Development Board. Building on what I think it's probably fair to say is dozens, if not hundreds of public meetings over the past. and making it actionable. So this isn't like day one, you know, new idea coming out of nowhere. This is the culmination of extensive work engaging this community and designing the future that we all want to see. So I'm excited to do that work. And I just think it's important to outline all of that here at the start of this piece of the project, because it is not you know, it's just important to outline that now, that this is not just the start right now, today, day one, where we haven't had any conversations. There's been a ton of process that led up to this point and into what we are in my considering kind of a final phase of a very long project. And then, you know, I think maybe we should build something in here too that future councils reconsider and look at these items in the future, but so that we don't end up waiting having plans that sit on shelves for 20 years, or like we did with the zoning recodification with Mark Bobrowski, having it be the first time since the 60s that we actually looked at the structure of the ordinance, or having, you know, I was just reading through the zoning ordinance earlier today looking for some stuff. There's probably some provisions from 1925 in there, you know, from the first ever zoning map. And I think it's probably not many, but I just think adding that kind of future focus vision too, to say, this is, we've done a lot of process. This is what the community today thinks zoning should look like. Once again, you know, and certainly in 60 years, but my guess in 10 or 15 years, people might have some different ideas too. So I think, you know, that we've done. So. Putting this in the context of the work that we've done, and the work that will come ahead is just an important thing to do as we embark on this ambitious project. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: So I think if you could just download it, if you could download a copy and circulate it. Great. You'd send it to the clerk to circulate.
[Zac Bears]: That would be great.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we did a big, big chunk at the end of the year.
[Zac Bears]: I have a couple of things. So first, um, just I want to double down on what Councilor Scarpelli and Councilor Collins were saying. And I think that Emily was saying as well around the community meetings. I think when we talk about the major squares and corridors, I think it'd be great, not just to have necessarily planning permitting, but also just to have, you know, community meetings, a South Medford meeting, a West Medford meeting, a Hayden Square meeting, a Medford Square meeting, a Wellington meeting to talk about the major squares and the connecting corridors and neighborhood issues as we get more into that piece of the project that's about the neighborhood and district. that's what I'm really was saying as well in terms of the public engagement community process, so I think 100% that idea is going to be. Part of what we do, and then we can take that additional feedback and incorporated into the work that we've already, you know. Have coming out of the comprehensive plan, so I think those are going to be, um. Great meetings to have and an informal session, which I know we all are doing all the time outside of these meetings that happen in this room. I know we're all out in the community, but we have occasionally been able to have on-site meetings, which is always fun, except when it's raining, then it's not so much fun. In terms of motions, I think my first motion would be to request feedback from the building commissioner, the chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the chair of the Community Development Board on issues that they are seeing with the zoning ordinance that they would like to see amended. And to have that by April 5th. and then we can have that for our April 10th meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Council President Bears. Thanks. I would like to, you know, and this would just be an initial list. We can come back and do it again, but also move to request that councilors submit any specific issues or policies they'd like to see included under the main topic areas as outlined by Emily Innis. And I think we should all, maybe we can also do that by April 5th. And I'm writing this out now, Mr. Clerk, I realize I should have thought of written these out in advance so that I could have sent you the language.
[Zac Bears]: I'm trying to think if, you know, it might be helpful. I don't know what Emily or Vice President Collins or Alicia, what you think about this. if we want to maybe pick a couple of those citywide policy areas to discuss on the 24th, like maybe we could start with the economic development and business growth and the climate resiliency on the 24th, and we can kind of just be prepared ahead of time that, you know, we'll start with these, the fixes on the 10th, and then we could do that on the 24th. I'm seeing some nodding heads, but I'm interested as well, those heads that I cannot see.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's my thinking. I think maybe we could start both or, you know, I mean, again, one of the intents of this is that, you know, the six o'clock meeting can go longer than an hour. I think we've been planning these for an hour and I respect that, but really the intent was not to limit these to one hour meetings, I think. if it goes two hours, if it goes two and a half hours, then the second meeting starts late, and that's just how it's gonna be. Or if we expect it to be long, then we could ask the seven o'clock meeting to think about a reschedule, something like that. That's just my personal thought though.
[Zac Bears]: That's up to Vice President Collins, honestly. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Uh, let's tell you that's not a motion or just leave it as an idea.
[Zac Bears]: I actually have a kind of a slightly same intent, slightly different wording. I'll email it to you.
[Zac Bears]: I'll email it to you anyway, but it's just motion to request that councillors on both of its motion requests, the commissioner, chair of the zoning board, chair of the community development board, submit comments on the issues they're seeing with the zoning ordinance and any proposed amendments by Friday, April 5th. And then the other one is motion to request that councillors submit specific policy issues. They would like to see addressed under each major topic area for the zoning project included in the presentation by Innes Associates by Friday, April 5th. And I think both of these should be that these should be submitted to Director Hunt and Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Fifth regular meeting Medford City Council, March 12 2024 Mr. Clark, please call the role, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. 24-050 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Condolences to the family of Joseph Rossetti. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further comment? Is there a motion, Councilor Scarpelli? After the next one, sure. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by second Councilor Tseng all those in favour. Aye. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 70 affirmative. None. The negative motion passes 24-051 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Condolences to the family of James Burns, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 70 in favor, none negative. Everyone please rise for a moment of silence. Thank you. The records of the meeting of February 20th, 2024 were passed to Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Lazzaro, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro has found the records in order and moved approval, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean, affirmative, non-negative motion passes. The records are approved. Reports of committees, I'm gonna read them all and then I'm gonna request a motion to join and approve. 21-057, committee of the whole report, February 21st, 2024. This was a meeting on the leaf blower ordinance, which was reported out of committee and is on the agenda tonight. 22-494 was an administration and finance committee report on the budget ordinance, which was reported out of committee and is on the agenda tonight. 24-056 was on the CPA applications, which we approved at our last regular meeting. 24-057 is a committee of the whole report, March 6th on our initial budget recommendations for fiscal year 2025. Is there anything anyone else would like to add? Councilor Tseng. Motion to join and approved by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative and a negative. The motion passes and reports of committees are approved. Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng to take 24-055 under suspension, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: 24 to 055 establishing a stabilization fund dear President Bears and members of the City Council. I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body establishes a general stabilization fund as authorized by Chapter 40 section five B of the general laws. Once free cash has been certified, I plan to return with a request for this honorable body to fund the stabilization fund. As you probably know, the vast majority of cities and towns in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have a general stabilization fund. In order to provide for emergencies and unforeseen expenses, a two-thirds majority of the city council is required to establish a stabilization fund. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. So we have a stabilization fund proposal from the mayor. I will recognize Councilor Collins and then I will recognize member of the administration, Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Madam Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: Madam Chief of staff
[Zac Bears]: Motion to table is undebatable. I did not recognize Councilor Collins, but a motion to table is undebatable. Does the motion have a second? There are no second the motion fails Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: If you want to have conversations, please take them outside. Any comments from members of the council? Councilor Tseng. Thank you, President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. There's a motion on the floor to approve, seconded by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further comment by members of the Council? Seeing none, if anyone would like to speak about it, members of the public. There's no, this is not, this does not appropriate money. This paper does not appropriate a dime. It doesn't though. Correct, that's what we're doing.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Mr. O'Leary, name and address for the record, please. Tap the bottom once you're up. The red light will come on when you tap it. I got green. There you go. Larry, can you help? You should only have to press it once, Larry. Shane's coming.
[Zac Bears]: There's no money being appropriated.
[Zac Bears]: I didn't hear you say it, so.
[Zac Bears]: All right, we'll have a vote on it. On the motion to table by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callahan. You need to shout it out or I can't see you. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: No. Five in the negative, two in the affirmative. The motion fails.
[Zac Bears]: You may continue, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please. Good evening.
[Zac Bears]: Rose, if you could just leave your name and address with Larry, please. Name and address the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: There's no money being appropriated.
[Zac Bears]: This is just establishing the account. It's not actually putting any money in there.
[Zac Bears]: That would happen in the future.
[Zac Bears]: So is it from taxes currently how the city works? We have free cash. You've heard the first free cash before we have free cash reserves. Basically, that's the aggregated money is left over from all the previous budget. Those reserves need to be certified by the state every year. It generally takes the state nine months to certify that money. During those nine months, we can't use that money for any purpose and it can't be appropriated. By establishing a stabilization fund, which is all that's happening right now, and if money were to be put in it in the future, during those nine months when free cash is not certified, the reserves would still be able to be appropriated for an emergency fund.
[Zac Bears]: Currently when free cash is not certified, our reserves are not available for those purposes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Mr. Castagnetti, if you could just let her first. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Since you've already spoken once, if there's anyone who wants to speak, you've already spoken once, so if there's anyone who'd like, if there's anyone who'd like to speak for the first time, I do. You'll defer, okay. Come to the podium, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: The city budget is on the city website.
[Zac Bears]: You would have to ask the mayor's mayor, we have asked the mayor we've had several meetings on the budget ordinance, we have an entire budget process set up so it's not accurate to say the meeting to explain why we cannot compel the mayor to come to anything.
[Zac Bears]: We don't have the legal authority. I said, we do not have the legal authority to compel attendance at these meetings.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not going to do it. Well, if everyone would be quiet, you could hear me. I said, we do not have the legal authority to compel people to attend these meetings.
[Zac Bears]: I do not have the authority to compel the mayor to attend these meetings. We can't tell the mayor to come. Why not? I don't have the legal authority.
[Zac Bears]: Because you guys do not help us.
[Zac Bears]: What's that there is a call the mayor, there is a copy of the city budget on the city website and there is a look at the, you can look at the budget is not updated as a copy of the approved budget that we approved in the council records on the city website as well. When, when did it happen he's saying it's not it was it's on but it's nothing we're not updating where, what, what, what I'm probably saying is, I think that we haven't received a budget to actual report budget. Budget to actual because a budget without the actual is we, I do know that departments have been meeting with the mayor about the budget budget actuals do exist and it is part of our budget ordinance that we'll see those which is on the agenda tonight.
[Zac Bears]: I can't control that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Castagnetti, would you like to speak on the Stabilization Fund? No, I don't, however- Well, if you don't want to speak on the Stabilization Fund, we're going to have to wait until- It is, okay.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Cushing Street.
[Zac Bears]: Enlighten me, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion? So I name an address to the record, you're fine, you don't have to touch Diane Harrigan 65 Ripley road.
[Zac Bears]: That's the last time that free cash certifies about twenty five million. That was last fiscal year. No appropriations have been made from free cash because it hasn't been certified yet this fiscal year. So it's likely higher than that. But again, this paper doesn't move any money into anywhere. It just establishes the fund.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Is anyone else like to speak for their first time? And we do have a limit of three times.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: There's no money.
[Zac Bears]: The mayor decides that we can only approve it.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comment on the stabilization fund? Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: If you just have comments. Thank you. Yes, thank you, Mr. Kastner. I'll have one too. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: So we had those discussions last year and they were tabled in June around the budget. My understanding of one of the reasons this is up is that establishing a stabilization fund would help the city's bond rating and that there are meetings upcoming on that item. even if it's unfunded, just having the stabilization fund is helpful.
[Zac Bears]: There are no costs associated with having the fund. It's just, it's a city-established fund. It's literally a line in an accounting software. Okay. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Phyllis. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Congratulations. Oh, thanks. Is this your first time talking to us as a school committee member?
[Zac Bears]: Definitely on your left.
[Zac Bears]: I do not believe we're going to be tonight. Okay, so we haven't, I mean there's an item on the agenda, requesting a report back.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: One second. Yes, Councilor Schapiro.
[Zac Bears]: And just to be clear, even if a fund is established, it would require a two-thirds vote of the council to place money into the fund, and then require a vote of the council to appropriate any money from the fund so the mayor would not be able to unilaterally use those funds.
[Zac Bears]: She can do it with free cash anyway.
[Zac Bears]: Well, she would have to come to us anyway. How slow those are?
[Zac Bears]: if those were the funds that were appropriated, but we have appropriated free cash. But this council would be able to say. The council would approve any allocations to the fund and any approvals.
[Zac Bears]: We approve free cash as well.
[Zac Bears]: But we also have spent free cash on fire trucks, DPW vehicles, a variety of things.
[Zac Bears]: Free cash is only available when it's certified by the state, which is generally only end of March, beginning of April, so it's not available for nine months. Any funds in a stabilization fund would be available 12 months. So we would have quicker access. Right now, if we need a fire truck in September, we can't actually buy it until April.
[Zac Bears]: Any further
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Any further comments by members of the public? Former Councilor Michael Marks.
[Zac Bears]: I think last year was about 1.5 million 1.5 million. So that's just off the top of my head.
[Zac Bears]: I do have the chief of staff. I do want to say that unlike Water and Sewer Enterprise, the council would be approving any allocations to the Stabilization Fund and any expenditures from the fund, whereas Water Sewer Enterprise is only through the Water Sewer Commission and not through the budget.
[Zac Bears]: Madam Chief of Staff, I see your hand raised.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. Any further comments?
[Zac Bears]: Madam Chief of Staff, do you have the water sewer retained earnings off the top of your head? Oh, sorry about that.
[Zac Bears]: So- Be careful opening that window, it might come down on you.
[Zac Bears]: Windows are from the 40s.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's an external independent. Where is that city website. updated the most recent one was for fiscal year 22 fiscal year 23 will be coming it takes okay it takes a year to audit the 200 million dollar budget fiscal 23 is next and we're currently in fiscal 24 which will be and it shows all the funds yes it shows where everything went okay outlook it's all on there it's a long document but it's a 200 million dollar budget okay Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: We have two public hearings and a presentation from the MBTA, and then we will get to the transfer fee. Yes, Councilor Tseng. On the motion of Councilor Collins seconded, we'll take a new motion since we've got it on the table. Motion of Councilor Tseng to approve, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Any further discussions by members of the Council? Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: We move to suspense, we have 23-319, Raisin Cane, 760 Fellsway, special permit for additional on-premises signage. Legal notice, Medford City Clerk's Office, notice of public hearing. The Medford City Council will hold a public hearing in the Howard F. Alden Chambers at Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford MA, and via Zoom on Tuesday, March 12th at 7 p.m., a link to be posted no later than Friday, March 8th, 2024, on a petition for a special permit for signs by Raisin Cane's Restaurant LLC, DBA Raisin Cane's Chicken Fingers, 6800 Bishop Road, Plano, TX 75024. The petitioner is seeking to construct an eat-in restaurant allowed use in a commercial 1C1 zoning district at 509-511 Riverside Avenue, aka 760 Fellsway, parcel ID lot 7-02-27, with additional on-premises signage requiring a special permit from the Medford City Council pursuant to Chapter 94, Section 6.2.20 of the Medford Zoning Ordinance. petition seeks a special permit for additional on premises signage. The petition and site plans for this project may be viewed in the office of the city clerk room 103 Medford City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts. Site plans can also be viewed on the city website at medfordma.org slash board slash Community Development Board by clicking on current CD board filings call 781-393-2425 for any accommodations and aids. City of Medford is an EEOA 504 employer by order of the City Council signed Adam L. Hurtubise, City Clerk. We have received a request from the petitioner to open the public hearing and continue it to a date certain as their council had to go undergo an emergency medical procedure. So I'm going to open the public hearing on raising canes and request a motion to continue the hearing to the date certain of April 2nd. So the public hearing is open. On the motion of Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng to continue this public hearing to the date certain of April 2nd 2024 seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 7 affirmative, 9 negative, motion passes. One moment. 23-369, 96-104 Winchester Street, Planned Development District 1, Planned Development Special Permit and Site Plan Review. The subject property known as 100 Winchester Street is comprised of an assemblage of parcels located at 96-104 Winchester Street on the Medford-Somerville Line near the Ball Square MBTA Green Line Station. The site contains commercial light industrial buildings along with historically significant structure. The applicant has proposed to redevelop the site in accordance with plan development. Winchester Street Plan Development District 1, approved by the City Council August 15, 2023, for mixed-use development consisting of two structures. After considering the submitted materials, presentations from the applicant team, recommendations from city staff, and public comment received at and in advance of the public hearing, the board found that, as conditioned, the proposal met the required criteria and voted five to zero to recommend approval of the site plan and plan development special permit. Whereas this is a public hearing, we will hear from the applicant, and then I will open the public hearing for public comment. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. As you noted, the council did approve the plan development district one zone unanimously last summer, and the Community Development Board has unanimously recommended approval of the site plan and a special permit with conditions. At this point, we do have a meeting ahead of us. I would ask councilors if they would like to see the presentation of Mr. Quinn, or if they have any questions for the proponents at this time. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: If we could just please keep the chatter down, it's hard for us to conduct business with the chatter. You can take conversations into the hall.
[Zac Bears]: I'm sorry, but if you're going to have conversations, please take them into the hall. It's a public meeting. And if you could shut off the alarm, whoever's alarm that is.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments by members of the council? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: And the second condition is... Condition nine of the community development board recommendations.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng before we entertain that motion I do have to open the public hearing so do we have any further questions for the proponent Council
[Zac Bears]: Is that verdant landscape? Yes, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further questions by members of the Council for the proponent before I open the public hearing? Seeing none, I'm going to open the public hearing. public hearing is open to anyone in favor, opposed, or otherwise wanting to comment on the project. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We can ask the proponent if they'd like to answer any of your questions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comment by members of the public or would the proponent like to respond to any of those comments? It's up to you.
[Zac Bears]: And the condition that Councilor Tseng mentioned regarding no off street parking permits, is that, do you have any, is that amenable to you?
[Zac Bears]: All right, great. Any further comment on the project? Just one quick question, don't run away. Name and address.
[Zac Bears]: Would the proponent like to answer the question? It's up to you. It's an apartment building, right?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Thank you. Any further comment? Right. Any further comment? Oh, I can't see. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: The proponent can correct me, but I do not believe restaurant isn't allowed to use in the planned development.
[Zac Bears]: It's not allowed.
[Zac Bears]: It's all in Medford, I believe.
[Zac Bears]: The proponent just answered that they haven't made that choice yet.
[Zac Bears]: It's not required.
[Zac Bears]: No.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I'm going to go to Greg Farber on Zoom. We're going to alternate. We're going to go to Zoom first. Greg, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's being added tonight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. make mark Martha and Fran please just give me your full name in the chat and I'll unmute you on zoom. Go to Alex lesson hop on zoom. Alex, I'm unmuting you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Alex. Any further comment from people in the chamber? Fran, I see you've come on video, so I'll unmute you. Fran, name and address for the record, please. We can't hear you. I'm asking you to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: We can hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Avola. Do you have some information on the drainage and water?
[Zac Bears]: I think they're trying pretty hard here, Mr. I don't, I don't know. It's up to the proponent to say what commitment they're willing to make here. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Avola. Thank you. I'm gonna go to Martha on Zoom. Martha, please give your name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to Roberta Cameron on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Erika DeRoche on Zoom before I unmute you. MIK, if you could just add your last name, or if you could come on video, I'll unmute you. Erika, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Let me go to Sharon Diesso on Zoom. Sharon, I'm unable to unmute you, Sharon. You have to join audio. Sharon, you have to turn on your microphone, otherwise I can't unmute you. Is there any further comment from people in the chamber on this project? Sure, if I could just give the proponent. Well, we have an agenda. Do you have anything you'd like to add? Thank you. Mr. McGilvey, name and address for the record, please. Take as much time as you want.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. They were promised. One more item before the transfer fee. Is there any other comment on 96 to 102 Winchester Street? All right, then I'm declaring this public hearing closed. Is there a motion on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to move the motion by Councilor Tseng, which didn't receive a second. Huh? They waited until midnight last time too. We tabled both of them.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. have a short presentation on improvements to the community. If we don't take if we don't hear it, they won't make the improvements is my understanding. But I will. I'll recognize them. I'll recognize them. For a five minute presentation that we can vote on. Sure. Thank you. Are they here? 23-081, MBTA Plan for Accessible Transit Infrastructure, PATI, and City Council, March 28th, 2023, February 20th, 2024. For the folks from MBTA, we have five minutes, so if you could give a two-minute presentation on what your conclusions are, and then we'll move ahead. Excuse me?
[Zac Bears]: Sure. If you just want to keep it to a slide or two, the clerk will make you a co-host.
[Zac Bears]: Just saying thank you, you may continue.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. I appreciate your speed. Any questions?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So that was two million dollars in improvement for the city of Medford?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve seconded by second seconded by Councilor Leming. Is there any comment from members of the public in the chamber or on Zoom? Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Martha. Any other comments from the chamber or on Zoom? Debbie, feel free to respond if you'd like.
[Zac Bears]: It looks like there were some significant bump out improvements at that intersection. Yeah. Debbie.
[Zac Bears]: Debbie, you're going to have to show it again.
[Zac Bears]: Martha, there should be a diagram in the agenda packet on the council website. Yes. Thank you, any further comment? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have affirmative, non-negative motion passes. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. 24-041 offered by Councilor Leming and Vice President Collins. whereas the city of medford requires approval from the commonwealth of massachusetts to impose a real estate transfer fee and whereas 18 other communities in massachusetts have submitted home rule petitions to impose local real estate transfer fees and whereas real estate transfer fees create a sustainable funding stream for needed housing production and affordable housing production in medford by levying a small fee on certain real estate transactions now therefore be it resolved that the Committee on Planning and Permitting meet to develop a Home Rule petition, quote, an act authorizing the City of Medford to impose a real estate transfer fee. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: If everybody could take their conversations outside, it's much easier to hear.
[Zac Bears]: I would please just everyone respects like there's been so much disrespect and it's unacceptable.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna go to Vice President Collins as a co-proponent.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve, seconded by? Second. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Please just like show basic decency.
[Zac Bears]: We can wait, guys. It's nice to see you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. We're in recess for 15 minutes. Thank you, everybody. If we could end our conversations or take our private conversations out in the hall, we're gonna restart. I wanna thank my colleague, Councilor Scarpelli, for reminding us about how to have a respectful and open public meeting. We do want to hear from everyone. Everyone will have five minutes to speak as per the council rules. We have the line, I think, relatively well-maintained from before our recess. We also have a number of people on Zoom. So we're gonna come out of recess now. Thank you, everyone. And Councilor Lazzaro had the floor. Is there anything you'd like to say further, Councilor Lazzaro?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Any further comments or questions from members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Callahan. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. And he didn't mention that this council in its previous term also passed the first zoning recodification in 60 years, and we are working on a comprehensive zoning reform project for the next 18 months. Any further comments by members of the council before we open up for public participation? Seeing none, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: This is the body that was elected to make decisions like these. Mr. Jimeno, I'm gonna go to Zoom and then come back to the podium. We're gonna go to Susan Gerard on Zoom. Susan, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Susan. And I would ask everyone to show, regardless of the content of the speech, the same respect to all speakers. And we should have showed the same respect to Ms. Giroir that we showed to Ms. Zimame. Thank you. Councilor Scott, I recognize you for a point of personal privilege.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you to the podium. And if you look in the top right of the screens, you'll see a timer. I'm seeing what there'll be a timer. I'm going to give you five minutes once you say I want your money.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Roberta Cameron on Zoom. Name and address for the record. Five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Roberta. Go to the podium. Mr. Cassinetti, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Can I say time for you to get a watch? It's 10.15.
[Zac Bears]: He's trying to lighten it up a little bit.
[Zac Bears]: It's 10, 15 p.m.
[Zac Bears]: You've got 4.35 now.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So let me I'm going to go to Councilor Collins point of personal privilege.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And your time has expired, Mr. Castagnetti.
[Zac Bears]: I'll give you 30 seconds. I'll give you 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: You got 10 seconds, Mr. Castagnetti.
[Zac Bears]: Can you come? Can you come back for a second round?
[Zac Bears]: Well, we need to let other people speak, Mr. Castagnetti.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Castagnetti, if you could please... Mr. Castagnetti, if you could please step away from the... Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. Thank you. We're going to go to Leo on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Let me unmute you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will note the city charter does not allow for recall elections. We're going to go to Alex Giller on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: It's on.
[Zac Bears]: We had an election.
[Zac Bears]: There was an election.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Fenton, your time has expired. We're going to go to Erika DeRoche on Zoom. Erika, name and address for the record, please, Erika.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to John Menino on Zoom. John, you have five minutes. John, you're unmuted.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can hear you now, John.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, go ahead john.
[Zac Bears]: John, you have to keep on topic about the transfer fee. Do you have a comment on the transfer fee?
[Zac Bears]: All right, thank you, John. Martha. In a second, let's let everybody settle. It gets pretty punchy around 11, so.
[Zac Bears]: Martha, name and address for the record please.
[Zac Bears]: All right, we can, we can, we can.
[Zac Bears]: I think she was asking that the quorum continue to be maintained.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Martha and yes again please take private conversations out into the hall.
[Zac Bears]: And yet,
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Ms. Waldrop. Your time has expired.
[Zac Bears]: I've waited a long time. There's a long line behind you, Ms. Waldrop. I've waited a long time. You can come back up. Ms. Waldrop, we have rules for a reason, and I'm very sorry, but I have to hear from everyone equally. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're going to go to Jessica Healy on Zoom. Jessica, do you still wanna speak?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. We will go to Frank Castanello on Zoom. That's not the rule, thank you. Frank Castanello on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, Frank, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Nate Merritt, and we're having a technical issue with the TV and the live stream, so we may need to take another recess, but Mr. Merritt, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: You have 30 seconds Nate.
[Zac Bears]: That's not true. Your time has expired. Thank you. No hands on zoom. So we'll go to the podium. Jamie Damon address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Come to the podium, yeah, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Could you wait just one second? I just have a question. And I did want to say, you know, when this started many years ago now in other communities, the intent was to focus on flippers, right? And the high value transactions and the flip transactions, which are keeping and outcompeting people like you who want to go owner occupied. So that's one of the reasons this exists. And I just want to also ask the nonprofit that you're on the board of, and feel free if you don't want to answer it, Do you know if they've endorsed the state transfer fee of Governor Haley or not?
[Zac Bears]: I don't think there is one we have, we have member community housing as a chodo but they've all been small projects.
[Zac Bears]: This is one proposal of many proposals we have been working extensively on zoning. We're trying to look huge, and we've been working really hard on it we have a meeting tomorrow night, based on the comprehensive plan which came together for two years based on the housing production plan, and I just think it's important for people to know. that there are city plans and there is a comprehensive approach. And this is one proposal in a large toolbox of proposals that's being looked at to address this issue holistically. And I think we have to treat it that way, but I appreciate your perspective on it. And again, I think you've heard here tonight from all of my colleagues that the intent is to have the discussion and talk through the issues that you brought up about who this impacts. If we can target this in a way where it goes after the flip transactions that all of us hate, where you're turning affordable starter homes into massive luxury homes, I can't I don't know anyone in the city who doesn't want that to change except for maybe people building the luxury homes, but it feels a little it feels a little bit of a slippery slope.
[Zac Bears]: I can say this I'm stuck here so you may not be stuck with me though I know Councilors are had something to say, with all due respect, I think we should go to say, Councilor Leming, I'm going to go to Councilor Lazzaro, and then to you Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Right, but on this on this particular topic we're speaking about homeowners, not necessarily, you know, it would also apply to commercial property, it would apply to the large developers who own multiple apartments so it's not just homeowners it's all owners of property residential commercial at all sizes. Okay, so expand the definition I understand commercial owners landowners which all of our major taxes target target per se, right. So, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Marks.
[Zac Bears]: We actually we have been talking about the infill overlay. We have a meeting tomorrow night on an infill overlays part of the process of what we're doing so again we are spinning the wheels, as was said on that, and many other we can pass it tomorrow. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. If folks could take their private conversations outside and please just close the doors of the room, that would be appreciated. Thank you. Mr. McGilvery, if you could maybe grab that one. Name and address for the records, please.
[Zac Bears]: It's kind of just how Councilor Callaghan, and I'll pause your time, apologies, but every topic we want to discuss has to be proposed on the agenda, and then it can go to a committee to be discussed further. So we've already brought up topics around inclusionary zoning, around zoning reform to reduce regulatory barriers, around a multitude of issues. So those are already in committee, we've already been discussing them, and this is being added to a list of items for consideration.
[Zac Bears]: That is what we're doing.
[Zac Bears]: And I just wanted to note as well, we are meeting on that issue of public engagement and why we have low turnout in elections. There's a number of items in the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee on that issue as well. And to be quite frank, all of us have devoted not just hours, but also tens of thousands of dollars to trying to get more people to vote. So we share. that same goal of trying to turn more people out in this community. Personally, I believe more turnout and more voice is better. So the more people we can get to vote, it's a good thing.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Hi Sharon name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Don't say that to me and George, okay? We're the only ones left out here.
[Zac Bears]: At least a long recess.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: You have 30 seconds, Ken.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Hi, name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. Hello again, name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record. Oh, okay.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Kelly. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, sure. She's still here. But okay, good.
[Zac Bears]: It was the housing stability notification.
[Zac Bears]: Kelly, that's time. I'll give you 20 seconds to wrap.
[Zac Bears]: I'm counting that as one question.
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate the comment. And I do want, I do hope that when you hear those kinds of stories, I think you've heard and you know, the process is not that anything just because we're discussing a thing. And I think this is, this is the flip side of it. There may be a discussion. The processes we discuss it we will discuss it for a period of time and committee meetings, things like rent stabilization or the transfer fee have to go to the State House for approval, you are well aware that they're not getting approved so when you hear people say I'm nervous about this would be really helpful if you could reassure them and say, even though these ideas are being discussed now, at best, they are at least a year away if not more, and that they don't impact because I think you know Part of all of our duty is to try to make sure that people understand the process. I agree that process matters. We've been very intentional about process. We have a lot of stuff and a lot of committees about trying to reach out to more people. We all try our best with the time and resources that we have to reach out to people through email, phone, social media, et cetera. And I will say too, you've said, I've been here a lot and you kind of were like, I have had to be here a lot. You know, part of this is on each and every one of us as citizens of Medford to also be paying attention to what the city government is doing. We're thinking about ways that we can try to enhance that. I think if all of us do the same, more people will be involved and, and, but I really hope you'll reassure folks when you hear that that that is not the process and you know that's not the process.
[Zac Bears]: That is the process.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you guys just thought I appreciate it.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. McGilvrey, I'm gonna wait just if we could just wait till we're done. We're almost done. Let's have comments at the end. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. He certainly did a lot of damage. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: they're having a really severe, they're kind of the bleeding edge of this problem, both from a supply issue and especially on the islands. I mean, you look at Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard, the speculation and the rampant, you know, you're talking about an average home value of the two, $3 million range. They can't afford, teachers can't afford to live on the island. You know, people are coming in on the ferries. So they've really seen a lot of it. I think the Cape and the islands is a leading edge. And then the urban core has really been next. And it's mainly, Because that's where the most the land values and then the property values are going up the fastest so that's you know Boston Somerville, the urban core Cambridge inside inside 95 and then the Cape and the islands are also have a big supply issue.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so so one of the things that we've put forward this term is we've moved to a standing committee structure where we have committees meeting. The first set well first and third or first and third and second and fourth weeks of the of the month. So this is going to planning and permitting committee, which I believe meets every second and fourth Wednesday at 6pm. If people want to look out for the agendas for that they're generally posted the Friday before that. This probably won't be up on the next one tomorrow night we have one it's on major zoning reform that we're doing. We really are trying to be super transparent this was on a governing agenda document that we put out at the beginning of the term. We're using the tools that we have available to us the legislative branch of the city has a $350,000 budget. The rest of it's on the mayor side. And, you know, we don't control the communications apparatus of the callback machine and or the deciding who gets mail, what we can ask for things to go out in tax bills, water bills, et cetera. But again, I think, you know, that's one way. So this will be, if passed tonight to the planning and permitting committee, that's where the discussion will start around those questions on threshold percentage, who is this applying to? What are the exemptions? And that was really the intent of this proposal was to say, before any even plan, you know, the proponents gonna come out and said, we want one and a half percent. We want it buyer and seller split even, We want to exempt these three things, but not these 10 things. And that's the plan and that's stuck in stone. I actually think that what they did by saying, we just want to discuss the idea and we're going to have those conversations in public committee meetings where anyone can participate. They didn't set something in stone and set the terms of debate right up front. They actually said, let's have the discussion. So those will be in those meetings. Council Vice President Collins is the chair of that committee as well. Those are public meetings just like this one. And again, they happen every second and fourth Wednesday at 6pm we're considering in that committee maybe 15 other proposals on a number of things that people like we're considering a tax break for landlords who keep their rents affordable. We're considering significant zoning reforms to allow more supply to be built. We're considering like, again, this holistic toolbox of issues to address the housing situation, which is what we've heard from a lot of people tonight. This is one potential tool. And again, I think, you know, there's been a disservice in the information that's been put out there and quite frankly, the fear that has been whipped up.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And I will also add, if you are kind of hungry for numbers, if you go to massbudget.org, they have a tool that estimates for each city and town, what the impact of different thresholds are. Actually, I think it's just what different rates would be based on the Healey proposal. So you can go massbudget.org, you can go to Medford, You can see what point five would look like what one would look like what two would look like. It's not complete because it doesn't have all the exemptions and everything that might be incredibly highly tailored to any community but that is out there, and they put one out also for 2022 as well that I think might still be available at real estate transfer fee.org.
[Zac Bears]: And I think that- It is on the city website, George.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Sam. Thank you. Any further comments by members of the public on this item? Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: That's what the future meetings are gonna be to discuss it.
[Zac Bears]: If we could just withhold from this point. I'd just like to finish public comment. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: It's just going to the council committee on planning and permitting. So it's staying with us.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your time. Any further comment by members of the public? I can't counsel this, I'm going to go to Councilor let me then Councilor Scarpelli Councilor let me, I just have the reading. I have to as well. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Say no to me a lot too. If we have actually more public comment. If you'd like to speak or name and address for the record, please. If you could just pull the microphone down a little bit sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do you wanna do the read into the record now? I have two, you have a couple. Could I? Yeah, I just, if we were gonna comment, I wanna- Yeah, no, I'm not gonna comment, just gonna read. All right, yeah, all right. He'll read a couple on the record, I have a couple, and then we'll go to council.
[Zac Bears]: That's it. Okay. Dear members of the Medford City Council, unfortunately I'm away and cannot be present at tonight's city council meeting. However, I'm submitting this letter in support of item 24-041, a resolution to develop a real estate transfer fee home rule petition. I'm a homeowner in Medford and I've watched as my home has gained value over the past 30 plus years. It is now worth about five times more than it was when it purchased in 1991. skyrocketing real estate costs may have benefited those of us who own homes, but it has been devastating for renters and those seeking to buy a home, a real estate transfer fee could begin to correct this imbalance, a home rule would allow men for to work out the details of an RTF in a way that is best for assuring that Medford has the housing resources it needs to continue to be a welcoming community. I believe that the RETF should apply to all properties and not be limited to those selling for over $1 million. As others have pointed out, a 1-2% transfer fee for affordable housing is not going to break the bank for those of us who have pocketed years of property value increases, nor will realtors who take a commission of 5-7% be put out of business by this additional 1-2%. The fact that our homes are worth more now than when we bought them is not to any effort on our part, but as a windfall. Sharing a small percentage of our good fortune through the RTETF is a small price to pay, For increasing affordable housing and making a home rented or purchased a reality for more people sincerely Jennifer Yanko 16 Monument Street Medford ma 02155. And I have one more. Dear President Bears I'm sorry that I will not be able to participate in the city council meeting on Tuesday but I would like to express my support for paper to four dash zero for one to submit a home real petition for a real estate transfer fee. Our ETF, I recognize that the details are to be worked out later but I would like to add that I oppose the exclusions that have been discussed exclusions from sales of properties under 1 million and sales by seniors would leave out about 94% of residential transactions and cut the amount of funds generated for affordable housing to merely 260,000 a year or so. A drop in the bucket when when we need is a waterfall. Many low income seniors like myself have owned our own properties for decades and benefited greatly from the speculative bubble that real estate has become my hundred and $6,000 home is now worth over $600,000. Is it too much to ask that I pay 6000 or 12,000 of my 500,000 profit upon its sale. gain not due to my hard work, but merely to living here while it appreciated in value so that others might have a chance of buying or renting a home. I would like to note that the loudest voices in opposition to an RETF are those of realtors. In my opinion, it is highly offensive for these people who pocket a whopping five to 7% per transaction to sound alarm bells about how a one to 2% fee would harm home buyers and sellers. I hope I'm not the only person to call attention to this hypocrisy. Sincerely, Barry Ingber, 9 Draper Street.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I mean, we did have good turnout. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: And with that, I'll. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Tseng, I want to give one minute, as requested to Councilor Scarpelli and then we will vote on the question the motion by Councilor Collins, seconded by I believe Councilor let me that was made about four hours ago.
[Zac Bears]: It's on the transfer fee. Right, all right, thank you. I did promise Mr. Castagnetti that he could finish his point. Oh, come on. I did.
[Zac Bears]: I almost remembered.
[Zac Bears]: What is that piece of paper? 1238 AM.
[Zac Bears]: You did this one already. You did, you already did that one.
[Zac Bears]: That's okay, I'll get you on it.
[Zac Bears]: You did this one too.
[Zac Bears]: I'm serious, I remember what you said.
[Zac Bears]: You said math doesn't lie.
[Zac Bears]: My old man paid co ops, you talked about co ops.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Castagnetti, I'm gonna ask you to get to your last cue card.
[Zac Bears]: That's not fair. That's not fair.
[Zac Bears]: I know. All right. It's already been three minutes on your second five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: $2,500 to $3,000 in the past year, yep.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Kessler. You got 10 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: All right.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. On the motion of Councilor Collins seconded by Councilor Leming as amended by Councilor Scarpelli to request the mayor's opinion and involvement on the creation of a home rule petition that great. Mr. Clerk please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: but almost not. All right, call the rest of the roll, please. Yes, on six and a half in favor, half opposed. The motion is referred to the Planning and Permanent Committee. 21-057, leaf blower ordinance. The latest draft of the lease floor ordinance was reported on the committee of the whole meeting on February 21st, 2024 for consideration by the full council and a copy is attached to this packet. On the motion of councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by. Seconded by councilor Zara for first reading. We will take any comments from councilors. Any comments on the lease floor ordinance? I have a councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Could you repeat the section again a little louder? Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, much appreciated. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callahan, or Lazzaro, as amended by Councilor Collins to remove the word continuous from section 38, 58, section two. Any further comment by members of the Council? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: This is the first reading of the leaf blower ordinance. It will then go be advertised in the paper and then come back to us for third reading. Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the council, members of the public, name and address for the record, please. Thank you for sticking it out.
[Zac Bears]: Only 53 minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Norman, I just want to give you a warning. We have one minute left. on the five minutes, then I'm gonna ask if other folks wanna speak and then I can come back to you for a second, five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Norman. I'm just gonna ask at this point, is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this subject?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the public on the proposed leaf blower ordinance? Anyone? There's just still people here, so I figured maybe you're here for this. Anyone on Zoom? I'm not seeing any hands, Norman. Five more minutes, last two points. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: It is limited to 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. for the city noise and nuisance control.
[Zac Bears]: I can just say this to speak to why these amendments were made. The building department said that outside of the noise ordinance, and the Sunday and holiday restrictions would be unenforceable and they don't have the staff to enforce it.
[Zac Bears]: Got one minute left, Norman.
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate it, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion by members of the council? On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, as amended by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative one of the negative the motion passes for first reading 22-49 for budget ordinance I request a motion that this be tabled for one week to appear on the agenda for March 19. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli seconded by. Councilor Leming to postpone for one week. I can't make motions. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Okay. Where are you at, Matt?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven. I'm sorry. Six of the affirmative. One of the negative motions tabled 24-047 offered by Councilor Leming resolutions to request linkage fee updates in the city of Medford.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. please follow Mr. quick says hang on I feel like we've been doing that for a while.
[Zac Bears]: Be it resolved by the Bedford City Council that in accordance with the intent of the council's vote in 2022 to establish an independent elections department, the name of said department be updated on the city website, city letterhead, and all of the city signage to election department to distinguish the department and staff from their governing board, the election commission. This is pretty self-explanatory. This has come with discussions with elections commissioners. They are the elections commission. Right now, their entire office is being referred to as the elections commission. They are the elections department and they are have a staff at the board is really an oversight role. As we are well aware of the elections commission for their very small stipend has been doing a ton of work over the last several elections, which was never the intent of this council. So I would request a motion to approve and send us the administration to properly name the elections department pursuant to our resolution in 2022 to create that model. On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tsenging, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll again. You want me to ask the clerk to call the roll again? Oh, okay. All right. 70 affirmative, none of the negative motion passes. The motion of Councilor Scarpelli to table papers 24-052, 24-053 and 24-054 for one week. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: No six of the affirmative one of the negative emotion passes. But George, what about my. On the motion of Councilors separately to adjourn seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Oh hold on a minute we have public participation. Public participation participation if any member of the public would like to participate please come to the podium or raise your hand. Seeing none on the motion of councillor Scarpelli as seconded by councillor saying to adjourn. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: City Council Committee the whole March 6 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Presidents and presidents, your absent the meeting is called to order. This meeting will take place at 6pm in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Essa Drive, Medford MA and via Zoom. To submit written comments, please email ahertabse at medford-ma.gov. So this is a meeting on 24-045, which is the resolution regarding the schedule of the annual budget process. As we discussed at our last regular meeting, by March 1st, city councilors submit individual budget recommendations for consideration. we're going to submit a collective budget recommendation to the mayor. We're then going to hold meetings with department heads and staff from April 15th to May 15th before the mayor submits her budget proposal on May 31st. And then we'll have another opportunity to talk to any department that we want to talk to after May 31st. You know, if. We don't want to invite someone back if we've had all our questions answered and their budget hasn't substantively changed since our preliminary meeting in April to May. No reason to have them down again. But if there are departments that we want to invite back and have further questions or we want to understand the impact of what the mayor's budget proposal is on those departments, then we'll be able to do that. The mayor also can, if she wants a department to come back, she can. also send them to us to give another presentation. So that's the basic process. I want to thank Councilors for submitting budget recommendations. We have a bunch of them in here. I just want to go through, give everybody a chance to kind of talk about their budget recommendations. And I have them in order, so I'll share a screen in a minute. But starting with Councilor Lazzaro, main ones were to protect cuts or prevent cuts at the Board of Health, anything that serves vulnerable residents, schools, and affordable housing, and protecting residents dealing with housing insecurity and housing issues. So I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Councilor Collins. Councilor Collins submitted primary priority in Medford's first post ARPA and ESSER operating budget, ARPA and ESSER being the federal funding that the city has received for the pandemic and pandemic recovery. We must maintain capacity within city departments, maintain capacity for key city functions and priorities, including long-term multi-year projects like road and sidewalk improvements, housing Climate resiliency capital product planning and maintaining constituent service and schools for all residents. So, the 6 primary priorities are 1 prioritize meeting the school departments, budget requests to prioritize the library departments, budget requests and maintaining level service an hour of operations. hours of operation, three maintain grant funded personnel in the health department, access to outreach and prevention and office of planning and development and sustainability, increased budgeted amount for city solicitor salary to maintain competitiveness with neighboring municipalities, increased budgeted amount for assistance city solicitor salary to maintain competitiveness with neighboring municipalities and Councilor Collins does have numbers on those. plus $49,871 for the city solicitor and plus $37,178 for the assistant. And also escalate elections manager position to elections director and increase budgeted amount for salary by $28,000 to attract competitive qualified candidates. There are also secondary priorities, one of which was implementing the Massachusetts Paid Family Medical Leave program for all city employees, which would increase city competitiveness with private employers and with other cities. and along with the compensation and classification study, help attract and retain competitive candidates in city positions to achieve fuller staffing and increase capacity across departments. And then there's also a study or consultant review of finance department software upgrade options and development implementation scenarios. Apart from expanding the personnel budget, what software and financial tools would increase capacity and effectiveness of the finance department budgetary and what would the budgetary impact of those upgrades be? And I think that's it. So I will go to Vice President Collins to talk a little bit more about her recommendations.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Allen. I was going to go to Councilor Leming, then Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Leming, I have here from you money for linkage, nexus and transportation demand studies, increased salary for library pages for the non-union part-time staff. more staffing in the elections office and permanent salary for community social worker Councilor let me.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you. Thank you, Councilor Leming. From Councilor Scarpelli, I have City Solicitor, Assistant City Solicitor, DPW Cement and Hot Top Crew and Equipment, Administrative Assistant for the Recreation Department, full-time or part-time to start, might be a good option to share with elections, Program Coordinator, Recreation Department, focused on afterschool care, and staffing and education for elections. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: You're all good. I'm gonna go to Councilor Tseng, and I have boiled down his letter. If I miss anything, you let me know. But we had the discussion of the Youth and Gender Equity Commissions and looking at 20,000 for the Youth Commission, 9,000 for the Gender Equity Commission. Maintaining investments in our public schools and community liaisons program, translation services, and the economic development planner, health equity and outreach coordinator positions, ensuring that the salary is competitive for hiring a new prevention outreach manager, increasing line item spending for road signage and markings, increasing staffing in our elections office. the city's financial software and increasing financial assessing staff. Ensuring HR has the capacity to keep their work and complete their work in a more timely manner, improving child care access and raising the salaries of vacant positions to meet regional standards. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Councilor Cahan, and then if you have any, and then I can read mine, and then we can talk about it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not aware of one. I think there have been some. There may have been one through ARPA. There were some micro grants and micro projects that went out, but I don't think there's anything in the general fund budget to my knowledge.
[Zac Bears]: All right, so mine, I had just five bullet points. One was level service funding for our public schools. The second was to do our best to retain all ARPA-funded staff positions on the city side. I'm with Matt. The part-time non-union staff at the library haven't seen a raise in six, seven, or eight years, and so we're really losing. Those positions are really hard to fill, and I think that's one that slipped through the cracks because they don't qualify under when we do the non-union raises for full-time, which we did last year, and they're not under the union contract for the library, so they managed to get outside of both of those processes where everyone else has been brought up, so I think that group should be brought up, and I think that's a To me, that's more of a technical error than it is anything else. So I really hope that we can address that in the budget. With Councilor Caraviello not here, I will sound the horn to increase funding for code enforcement in the building department. That is what he would bring every year to these meetings. We need more folks over there for a number of reasons, but the job's getting even bigger. Short-term rentals, Maybe a rental registry, maybe, you know, the leaf blower, but we know that we need more code enforcement. And that's a quality of life issue for people across the city. I mean, we have so many civil code violations. And very few resources devoted to actually enforcing the civil code and making sure that the city is. just staying clean and safe and relatively as beautiful as it can. So that is really important to everyone's daily quality of life. And I know that a lot of the complaints that we hear from folks outside of the big ticket items of fixing the roads and building a new school and building a fire station and funding staff positions really come down to Why is there trash on the curb and on the sidewalks? And why are private landowners able to leave their front lawns just looking at a situation which is against our city ordinances and things like that? So really just want to sound that alarm. And then the last one, it aligns with what everyone else has said, but around the city financial software, at least putting the seed money in Um, you know, you could talk about it's been talked a couple ways in here. Councilor Tseng, uh, his recommendation around update our city's financial software, increased financial assessing staff. We had ensuring human resources have capacity to complete their work. Um. To be honest, and I think this kind of has gone on. Unspoken. and maybe this isn't the space to speak it, but I'm going to say it anyway, this entire thing around the fire department has started from a place of our financial systems being in not a good place, right? And retro pay taking way too long to get out the door after we, you know, we had a contract approved, we rushed through, we skipped the three readings unanimously on a contract, and then it hits the it's the financial system that can't calculate the payroll. And here we are in a really bad spot. I think all of us agree, regardless of what maybe our individual positions are on individual specific issues, that if we just had better financial software, we may not be in at all. So I really think that that is, you know, having had conversations with different departments and seeing how payroll works in the clerk's office and seeing how it works in other parts of the city, I think, you know, maybe it's a $2 or $3 million investment to really bring up our financial stuff to where it needs to be or get the staff in there or make sure that the training's there, whatever the issues are. between the staff time and the paperwork and all of that that's going into it, we're spending hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars anyway. If you're taking, in the police department, there's two and a half FT working on finance and paperwork outside of our finance department, right? So that's a lot of money. And that multiplies across all of our departments. When you have department heads spending hours a week on paperwork, that really could be automated. I think that we would find, and I haven't even gotten into the fact of all the reporting that we've been looking for for two years or wanting to know the financial situation of different, you know, I could go on and on and on about all of the things that spring from this central problem of not having the financial software in a place that we get timely reporting and that staff doesn't have to do onerous amounts of work. to just do basic financial functions. So to me, it may be the most boring of everything we've talked about, but I think it's actually at the center of a lot of the problems that we see in the city, or at the very least, understanding what those problems are and beginning to find solutions to them. So I hope we move in that direction. So those are my recommendations as well. I'm going to open it up to general discussion, and then I have been trying to lump these into different categories, but I need another minute to do that, so I'll go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: and I just wanted to, for my part, clarify on the software piece. I was talking about the payroll system software, not the financial, so I should have noted that. No, no, no, in my, but I just wanted to, my understanding is the issue is that the payroll software is an old, outdated system, and people are, you know, I'm watching people write payroll down every week on a piece of paper. It's kind of nuts.
[Zac Bears]: I think there was a serious question of what happens if the typewriter breaks? We can't fix it. And then we want people to do the thing. So, you know, when we talk about that issue. Yeah, we're gonna need to borrow.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, exactly. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Leming. So I have been able to sort these into some categories, which I can share here.
[Zac Bears]: Make sure folks can see this. I tried to pull these out, and we had multiple people with a similar item. I tried to put everyone's name next to it, but we have kind of the categories of preventing cuts and then recommendations around staffing increases as well as, and that includes like if we were recommending a change in compensation. and then non-staffing increases, and then a few one-time expenses. I left a further study here, Councilor Collins, around the paid family medical leave, but if you think, I couldn't quite figure out, it probably should go into staffing increases, but. Yeah, okay, so I'll figure that out. But in general, I think we could write this up in a slightly clearer way, and then submit this to the mayor by March 22nd. I like what we did last year. Last year, we had kind of a set of combined priorities. We kind of picked a top five. and then also submitted everything that everyone had sent as an addendum. So I don't know what folks want to do at this point. I could, you know, we're at 7.15. I could share around a copy of this and we could schedule another meeting. You know, folks could kind of say, here's my top five, and we could try to hone in on what the top five recommendations should be. Or we could try to do that now. Or I could try to do it based on things that got submitted multiple times. I think we could go through any kind of process that the body requests. I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, the best way that we could do that would be I could send out a document, and then people could, or I could have the clerk send out a document, then people could reply to the clerk with their top five based on that document, and then we could have another meeting to vote on it.
[Zac Bears]: we could probably make it work, but- It's not a meeting. Yeah. Okay. Vice President Collins and then Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I'm happy to just give my opinion on that, which is just, I think, deciding what we think is the most. I mean, there's overlap, so I don't want to overestimate it, but we probably have 25, maybe 30 recommendations. And, you know, a lot of the ones in the prevent cuts are pretty much the same. I think we could almost boil that down into one, right? Like don't, you know, or one or two, you know, meet these budget requests, do not cut these positions, et cetera. But I think it's, I think it's kind of a signal noise type, just like thought process of like, if we send 30 things over to the mayor, who's already thinking about 300 things, will it get lost versus, you know, and even for my set of recommendations, like, increase funding for code enforcement in the building department. I want it, but we've been it's been a request for 10 years. It hasn't happened. Right. So I'm not voting that a top 5, but, you know, level service funding for the schools are retaining the positions. Those are really important right now. This year. I think that's really more, it's more just saying, here are our top priorities. And then also here's what every Councilor thinks. And then it's really on the mayor and the finance staff to incorporate what they think they can incorporate. But I think it's also drawing and beginning to draw lines for budget negotiations. So in a sense, kind of, I think we have had for the last two budget cycles, lines in the sand of this is what, if you want the budget to pass, here's what we think needs to be in it. And we've been successful in making sure, for example, that the zoning study funding was included. We did keep the solicitor's positions in the budget, even though there hasn't been hiring for them. So I think now we're maybe going back to the plate on that one and saying, well, OK, you've kept it in the budget. You promised it for three years, but no one's in the position. What's your plan to increase the funding so that we can get someone hired in those roles? So that's kind of, I think, the shape of the discussion. And I'll leave it at that, and I'll go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Second. Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Galliard.
[Zac Bears]: I think it would be helpful to email them to me and the clerk, because I want to make sure that they get included in the packet, even if they are not. Yeah, I just want to make sure they get included in that.
[Zac Bears]: So on the motion of Council Vice President Collins, did you catch that? Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Could we change that to by Monday?
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. It's looking like we would have that meeting at six o'clock on Tuesday the 19th. I love it.
[Zac Bears]: You heard that? George Scarpelli says we should meet twice a week.
[Zac Bears]: Are we going to take a vote on Councilor Scarpelli's motion? There are five people on Zoom. I wish.
[Zac Bears]: My mom's watching later. On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? All those opposed, motion passes. We like to call this Schrodinger's meeting. It's like, do we meet too much or do we not meet enough? I can't tell.
[Zac Bears]: second on the motion of council calls adjourned seconded by councilor levels in favor opposed motion passes meeting adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Um. I know the rental registry conundrum has been a real issue in terms of the short term rental piece of things as well. Talking to Commissioner So I know that that's an issue on that question as well, because it's so hard to know who's doing Airbnb. How do we figure it out? And Airbnb won't tell us. So interested in some solutions around that as well. Just had a question on the content of the notification. Does it note that these are like the state law minimums or maximums, but then also note that like check your lease because your lease may have, you may have signed something that has different requirements. Like for example, like if you don't have separate meters at the house that the landlord has to pay for the electric, but if you do have separate meters, then you can sign a lease that says I have to pay for the electric, right? So there's certain kind of nuances. And I think it's always important to remind folks that this is what the law says, but check your lease as well. Is that in there?
[Zac Bears]: If it's built into the answers, you know, I think that's, you know, as long as it's in, I can go either way on it. I think it's just a good reminder. Obviously, it doesn't apply to everything, but you know, if all the questions where it applies, it says, and be sure to check your lease, because this is, you could have signed something that says something different. I think that that's sufficient.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Okay, great. And just my other question. folks who pay their taxes through their mortgage, which is a lot of people in the city today. So yeah, so there's still some people aren't open to it. Because that's what I hear.
[Zac Bears]: And I'm guessing these are probably questions for the Treasury Department, or even for Commissioner Vandewaal, who was surprised that he runs the mail metering system, when he was like, I've been trying to fix the mail machine. I didn't realize that was my job. I'm guessing we just print this on the bulk envelopes that go out, and there's no way that we could put like a stamp on. I'm guessing we don't buy envelopes for the tax bills every year. And could we put something on it that's like, please open, there's also city information inside, like on the envelope itself.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. It may be interesting if they could special print on the envelope, maybe.
[Zac Bears]: Read this, yeah, yeah, yeah. Prize inside. You won't like it, but it's still a prize. I figure they have to print the return address on it anyway, so I don't know.
[Zac Bears]: Finance Committee meeting, February 27th, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Five present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Administration and Finance Committee on February 27, 2024 at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, and via Zoom. The action and discussion items for tonight's meeting are, there's just one, paper 22-494, Resolution to Draft a Budget Ordinance for the City of Medford, initially proposed September 2022. There were five committee meetings in 2023, in February, March, October, November, and December. And we are now meeting on it once more. I think we've ironed out pretty much all of the details. I'm going to quickly just share my screen. Give me one moment.
[Zac Bears]: All right, so this is our agenda item, and you can see if folks go to MedfordMA.CivicClerk.com, you can find all of our meeting information here, our action and discussion item for tonight, all of the committee reports, a variety of documents attached. We're going to be looking at the latest version, which I'll just go through. which we sent to the administration. The administration did send back a response. But in general, this is adding to our Chapter 3 finance. It's not changing anything. We're adding a purpose and intent of the article, but then not changing any of the existing provisions. It adds a new Article 5, annual budget process, and a new Article 6, budget needs assessments. You can see all the tracked language change here, but essentially this would create quarterly financial reports and meetings where the city council will meet with the finance director 60 days after the end of each quarter. What would be discussed would be previous quarter accounts payable warrant by month for each month, the year to date budget to actuals report on audited, where available, any updates on state certifications and revenue forecasts. And we would hold a committee or subcommittee to review the 2nd and 3rd quarter financial reports no later than 60 days after the end of the quarter coordinating the date and time of the meeting with the finance director to attend. Then we get into the budget process. Essentially, we outlined this in a resolution last week for this process, but we would start with city council budget recommendations, members of the city council submitting individual recommendations for consideration by the full council by March 1st. So folks get your recommendations in by Friday. What should we discuss in a resolution, then we would consider those recommendations as a council and submit them to the mayor by March 22. Let me jump back up here. We would start having, after that, some preliminary budget meetings between April 15th and May 15th with the mayor-designee, finance director-designee, relevant department heads. The mayor is providing an estimated budget allocation to the Medford Public Schools by March 1st as well. And we're working with the administration to schedule these meetings. The mayor finance director shall provide a schedule that contains the order in which they're discussed based on staff availability and administration priorities. Those meetings would also have information for those meetings, including the annual operating budget for the previous year, the department heads budget requests for the upcoming year, and then a list of any new staff programs or services requested for the upcoming year. following that, those meetings, so we'd have the recommendations of the council, preliminary budget meetings with department heads and the mayor and the finance director, and then the mayor would submit a comprehensive budget proposal by May 31st of each year. And after that, we could request, the council can request additional budget meetings to review specific proposed department budgets. The mayor, budget, finance director, designees may also request additional meetings. And the comprehensive proposal would contain total expected amount of general fund revenue, including the expected property tax revenue, expected state aid, expected local receipts, as well as the proposed annual operating budget for each department. And then as we discussed previously, including just simple top lines of This is how much of the budget is paying for things we already did in the previous year. Or, for example, how much of an increase is coming is just paying for fixed cost growth, like union contracts, or the increase of the trash contract, etc. And then how much of any change is paying for new programs or new expenses, and that can let people see. very simply that most of the time, even when budgets go up in a nominal dollar term, it's really just paying for something that we were already paying for in the past because the cost of that has gone up year to year. And then there were 2 other items, which I know that the previous committee that ordinances and rules committee. Has been pretty insistent on, and the administration has been insistent that it's not really it's a capacity question to be able to do these, but there's 2 items 1st is section 3105. Which is reviewing the progress to include additional funds and the comprehensive budget proposal. So, we would like to see if possible, and we've had folks can read the committee reports. I don't think we have to belabor everybody with the. Having the discussion for the 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 6th time necessarily tonight, since it's already been had, and it is already written for the record, but the subcommittee previously, and we'll see if that is still where the committee is really would like to see more of the city's total spending and revenue included in the budget process, including our enterprise fund. uh, capital improvement plan, revolving funds, grant funds. Um, and so in lieu of including that understanding that the capacity is not there in the finance office, there's a section here that would say that the request that have the annually no later than October 15th, the mayor finance director or designee submit a report to the council. regarding the progress towards including those items in future comprehensive budget proposals and then that'd be followed up by a meeting between a council meeting with the mayor finance director or designee to present that report and answer questions and also consider updates to this ordinance if there are new procedures to be included. And there's also a similar item, you know, initially this proposal had started with not just a scope of having a budget schedule established by ordinance, but also this idea of budget needs assessments. So really trying to determine what our medium and long-term operating and capital expense needs are so that we can understand when we're spending money on a capital plan or when we're saying, you know, trying to understand what it would take to provide an additional level of service or a higher level of service for a department. What is that going to cost? And, you know, through our discussions, it's clear that the resources and staffing levels in the finance department would need to be increased in order to accomplish that goal. And also that in some aspects, we would be breaking new ground That's, you know, some communities, most communities don't necessarily have the resources to put together reports of this nature as well. So, in a similar fashion, the latest draft from our December 2023 meeting just also includes that annually, same dates and times the mayor finance director designee can submit a report regarding progress towards creating these documents. And then we would have a meeting to discuss those reports if needed. And the administration also shared a response. and generally believe we're very close to being in agreement with the current draft. Main concern are those two sections regarding the annual reports. As stated in past meetings, we're not equipped to take this responsibility on presently and recommend that the committee defer discussion on these items until after at least a year so we can assess how things are going. Resource constraints are going to be tested and not having capability for those sections. is, you know, it's not there. And driving this point home, the capital improvement planning process takes over a year to complete. And so that's just another item to add in there. We hope the committee will be amenable to these exclusions. We're all trying to work together to better our process has been attainable. The mayor and I do not want to set up our departments for failure given our role in the organization. We believe we have the best understanding of their resource constraints. So that's kind of where things were left. I did send another message saying, at least my understanding of the prior committee, is that if the report simply says we still can't do it, then that would be something that you know, we've had a lot of discussions on this. I think we understand the position of the administration that the resources, that this is a resource, this is a resource intensive act and the resources are not there. So that was just, but that was just my personal opinion as one Councilor. So, but I just didn't want to put that out there. And so that's a summary, I think in a few minutes of everything that's happened up until this point, I will go to members of the council, but since I did read some responses from the administration, I do want to, let you chime in if I've mischaracterized anything before we move to discussion by the council. So recognize the Chief of Staff or the Finance Director at this time.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Dickinson. All right. Discussion by the council. I saw Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Zaria and to Director Dickinson's point at this point we've stripped out anything beyond just saying we'd like to see this let us know every fall how how well we're doing or how not how far we've gotten how not far we've gotten depending on where we are. Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comment from members of the Council? Any discussion from the Chief of Staff or the Finance Director? Madam Chief of Staff?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. Any further comments or discussion? Seeing none, is there any member of the public who'd like to speak? on Zoom as we don't see anyone here in the chamber with us. You can raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, Vice President Collins. Thank you, President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins, and I just do want to note that the first main article regarding the budget would go into effect. We need to make an amendment because it says becomes effective January 1, 2024, and it is obviously March or February 27, 2024. The second section regarding the, and still this just is just about a report at this point. It doesn't actually outline. This is just a progress report rather than a comprehensive. analysis of budgetary needs that would not go into effect until next January 2025.
[Zac Bears]: I would just posit that we won't. And I don't think we're that far apart, but I think I think the administration has made it clear they would prefer it not to be there. My assertion, and I mean this in the kindest of ways, is that we've already thrown out the two sections, and now we're just saying, what would it take to get them back in? That's just putting my cards on the table. We've said, we hear you. It's not feasible. All we want to do is every year check in on future feasibility. So that's just my two cents. If there's word changes that make people feel better, I have no problem with it. You know, that's that's where I'm at. I do have 2 things I wanted to add to the to the conversation. Which is 1. I actually think. You know, I was putting together the resolution to talk about the fiscal 25 budget, and I realized that I think sections. I think section what is currently city council budget recommendations to the mayor should come before preliminary budget meetings because it's chronologically an earlier step in the process. And I just think it might read easier if those 2 sections were swapped. And I'm sorry, I was just reading through this 1 last time to catch any specific. Just technical things. I think the only other one was just that we should change the effective date of Article 5. So that's it, but putting those on the table as well. Further discussion on Councilor Tseng's point or any other technical amendments? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. So let me... I can go back to screen share. Do we have a... This looks like the document 12-20-2023. Does that seem right?
[Zac Bears]: In the packet. I think this is what I attached. So you'd be motion to accept all of the track changes in here. And then also to swap sections 103, 102, and 3103. OK. Just to swap the order of sections 3102 and 3103. And then you also have the effective date. What do we want to say?
[Zac Bears]: Or should we just do it for when the ordinance is passed? Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Because we're trying, yeah, that's right. Yeah, that sounds right. Changing the motion to let the article become effective on passage. and 3108. Okay, let's see what happens here. This is a momentous occasion, everyone. We're accepting all of the track changes. Second from Councilor Tseng. I guess I shouldn't press the button until we've voted, right? All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Let's see if my computer crashes. It didn't crash, and it cut a whole page off of this thing. All right, I'm going to move these two around. All right. All of that should be in here now. The article 5 effect on passage the next article not until 2025 swapped and it looks good. I think the last thing is just I know there were several proposals to add additional language regarding the annual progress reports. Any motions on that. All right. Any further discussion. Chief of staff, Madam Chief of staff.
[Zac Bears]: We want to try it now? I'm seeing some nods on taking a look at it now. Sure. All right. I love it. Let's see what Muni Code says. All right. One second here. All right.
[Zac Bears]: So just reading this. No, I appreciate that, Madam Chief, so I just want to read. So we have the Chief Budget and Procurement Officer, appointment term or authority. This is pretty, you know, some of this looks like it's from the pre-1987 charter era. So I don't even know how much of this is, you know, holds water under the current charter. or exactly what the updates were. But yeah, I definitely agree with you. Some of these seem to be obviously procurement, and some of them are budget related. Some of them are affected by the other sections. It looks like these, section 2932 and 2933, Those, I don't know, yeah, this is pretty technical and it looks like it gets pretty deep into procurement law. And I don't know if it, you know, are we currently producing an annual report of the cost of all supplies furnished to each department or officer? Is that something that's happening? Do you know, Bob?
[Zac Bears]: All right. Any thoughts? So it seems like maybe we can't do this right now. Council Vice President.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Yeah, if you guys take a look through this and you have suggestions. we can just add the modernization pieces on the floor.
[Zac Bears]: Got it.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and one of the things that we've been, you know, put out in the council governing agenda document is having just generally each committee review the ordinances that fall under their committee's authority for just general upgrades and updating. Because we found a lot of times, you know, going through, I know I did, I let snow and ice removal, Councilor Collins let on solid waste. There's just a lot of anachronistic language in the city ordinances that really needs to be updated. We can wrap it up in that process at some point too. But if the administration has proposals on this outside of us, finding the time to just generally review ordinances, I don't think I for one would not object to taking a look at them and trying to incorporate them.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, absolutely. All right, so we have our amended document. Are there any further motions? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to report this out of committee to the regular meeting. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. When you're ready, Mr. Clerk. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Anything else anyone wants to do? Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, yeah, and I would echo those comments as well. We have done a lot of good work, many meetings, lots of edits, and I will go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Great, any further comment on the motion to adjourn? Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng? Oh, seconded by Councilor, I can't, sorry. I should have spoken up. Councilor Tseng, all those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes, meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Committee of the Whole, February 21st, 2024. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present, seven present, none absent. Oh, six present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber on the second floor of Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, and via Zoom. To submit written comments, please email ahertabase at medfordma.gov. The action discussion items tonight are 21-057 offered by former Council President Morell and President Bears's leaf blower ordinance. The draft was distributed to members of the council by the city clerk. It is attached to this meeting packet. It includes the draft ordinance based on the 10 motions that are November 15th, 2023, committee of the whole meeting, and it was also submitted to the city administration for legal review and the updated draft with legal comments from KP Law is attached. So we have that draft now. I'm happy to go through it. It reflects again, as I said, the motions made at our November 15th, 2023 meeting. We do have a few questions from KP Law. And we are joined by our new building commissioner, who we will hear from at some point during the meeting as well if we have questions. So just going to get this going here. How is this looking for folks on the screens? Can we see it? Could zoom in a little bit if helpful. Visible? Good. Great. So this is a memorandum from January 31st, revision of the leaf blower ordinance to reflect the motions from our meeting. Largely, this has stayed similar to the initial draft in terms of the title, obviously, the purpose and intent of the ordinance, and the definitions mostly. And these line changes that you'll see in here, these are the line change suggestions of KP Law Council. But the definitions, we have a definition of commercial leaf blower operator, We have electric leaf blowers, gas-powered leaf blowers and owners of large property. And then this is where it differs from the draft one and draft two, where all of the regulations were all compiled into kind of one lump section that was difficult to read and discern what applied to who. This separates them all out into sections, essentially three sections. One, that would be general regulations that apply to all leaf blowers. which I'll go through first, and then a set of regulations for the commercial operators, municipal operators, municipal contractors, and owners of large property, and then a much shorter section on the residential use of leaf blowers. But the general regulation on the use of leaf blowers, pretty basic stuff. Satisfy emission standards of the EPA. Not be permitted for more than one continuous hour a day in the city at a particular property. So if you're leaving a leaf blower on for an hour, it's consistently on without any stops. There's on parcels of 10,000 square feet or less, one leaf blower may be used at a time on parcels larger than 10,000 square feet, one per 10,000 square foot area. Here we have not causing any debris to be deposited onto other parcels or the public right of way. On this one, we have in no event shall leaves and basically debris be blown into catch basins or onto vehicles. We do have a comment from the legal counsel suggesting the removal of swept or raked here. Similarly here, the various debris shall be removed in a sanitary manner to prevent it from just being blown around by the wind or being thrown around and someone running through it or driving through it. There's some questions here again from council specifically on what the languages shall be removed by whom and what the sanitary manner means. So that's something we can come back and address. And then very explicitly saying that you can't use a leaf blower to blow around masonry or construction dust and debris, which as we know is pretty harmful. The section 3859 regulates municipal use, commercial operators, and owners of large property. Essentially, it says that any time of year, you can use electric leaf blowers, just subject to the noise and nuisance control ordinance of the city. So you can only use them 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., just like any noise-making ordinance. any noise-making machinery. Technically, the noise of nuisance ordinance already applies to leaf blowers. This is restating ordinance that already exists. Something from the last meeting regarding gas-powered leaf blowers is we had prohibitions on the specific time frame for use. in here have it being prohibited except between March 15th and May 31st and September 15th and December 15th. So that's the prime time in the spring and fall for property cleaning. And we have discussed that and had some public input suggesting that we widen that range and that was included here. Also subject to the noise and nuisance control ordinances, which is already true, but it's just stating it here. Commercial operators, municipal operators, municipal contractors, and owners of large property would adhere to applicable OSHA requirements with respect to use of PPE to make sure that everyone who's using these machines is following those requirements. And then section four gets into kind of the I would say the bulk of what this is about is having ensuring that the larger operators and institutional operators property owners are submitting an operations plan to the building commissioner and That would allow the building commissioner to ensure that everyone who's operating these in the city is following the ordinance, understand what their plans are to mitigate the impact and noise and emissions on the neighboring properties. include an inventory of what equipment they own and they plan to use, include how they plan to educate their users of the equipment on safety precautions and proper use of the equipment. There is a comment here of, you know, when shall an operations plan be submitted, by what date, how often does it apply, is it every year, etc. So we'll come back and discuss that. There's also a standard fee that would be paid for submitting an operations plan, which is just sufficient to cover the. Essentially, what the administrative costs are for having this system in place, and the council notes that this must be unreasonable in compliance with the Emerson college test, which is, I think, a legal court case test around what. Satisfies applicable administrative costs. So, you know, that again, that's a comment. That's just true. I don't think we have to put that in the ordinance anyway. It's just stating what the legal standard is for. For these charging fees for administrative processes. Here in section five, that the provisions of this section are not going to apply if it's using a leaf blower as necessary to maintain warranty or safety of a rubberized or similar service, or if it's performing operations and cleanup associated with special events, storms, and hurricanes. So that section is a small change here that council has suggested saying events including but not limited to instead of and the like. For residential regulations, I think we heard pretty loud and clear from folks that they really didn't, they couldn't in the last draft of the ordinance see what was being regulated for commercial or large property, what was the regulation on like a person using a leaf blower on their own property. So we separated that out and essentially the only restrictions for a resident using a leaf blower on their own property on the property in which they reside is, you know, you can use electric leaf blowers all year. The gas leaf blowers would apply during those same, you can only use them during those same periods, March 15th to May 31st, September 15th to December 15th. And then there would be de minimis use. Essentially, if you're not using it more than 10 total minutes per day, you can use it pretty much any time. So if you have a small, quick thing, you wanna spend five minutes a couple times a day blowing leaves or whatever you need to use it for on your property, that would not be subject to any sort of the regulations of the ordinance. This does include a phase-out of gas-powered leaf blowers, starting with commercial leaf blower operators and owners of large property in 2026, and starting with municipal and residential owners in 2028. Wheeled leaf blowers powered by four-stroke engines are not subject to the prohibitions of this section. And then finally, The enforcement section here is pretty standard. This is that the building department shall enforce. They're going to use Chapter 40, Section 21D, non-criminal disposition. The building commissioner or designee will be the decider on who enforces. And the fines start with first offense written warning, second offense, $100, third offense or more, $200 per offense. And Council has recommended that we remove and the Finance Director has also recommended that we remove this section on fines collected under the section to be placed in a special revenue fund for the purposes of further enforcement of this ordinance, that the administrative burden and the amount of fines likely collected wouldn't make sense to create that fund. And then the effective date of the ordinance, other than the provisions already stated, would be July 1, 2024, except for any contracts that the city has signed that are in effect, and there'll be the termination of those contracts. So that is the sum of it. At this point, is there any discussion by members of the council on this draft? Any suggestions or thoughts on this ordinance? Council Vice President Collins and then Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: It's up to you if you wanna. We can wait, yeah. I'll go to Councilor Kelly and then Councilor Scarpelli. And I wanna note that Councilor Tseng is present.
[Zac Bears]: I can speak to one reason being the difference in emissions from a four-stroke engine than a two-stroke engine. Not to say that greenhouse gas emissions are a good thing, but it's less particulate. It's generally a cleaner burning engine. There's nothing in here that would plan to phase them out at any point, but it is kind of a different beast, if you want to say. for a different size of property, something you're taking over a much wider area. So, I'm sure folks could speak to that, but that's my understanding why it is not included.
[Zac Bears]: Go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further comments from members of the Council? Mr. Commissioner, do you want to say anything at this time or does anyone have any questions for the Commissioner? Neither nor. Okay. I will recognize Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: So just note Council Collins, you could make one motion with all of your changes. So just for the clerk's ease, we've started a motion, you've read the first change, you can keep reading and then we'll just consider it a single motion.
[Zac Bears]: We have been using the phrase municipal operators, municipal contractors, commercial operators, and owners of large property. You could just change the last one to property owners. It could be an or.
[Zac Bears]: Or it could just be simpler. Any thoughts on that?
[Zac Bears]: I would suggest that you could just leave it as property owners.
[Zac Bears]: I think we're trying to... If you want to unmute, and then Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Suggesting Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: You can continue.
[Zac Bears]: There were a couple of other questions here. It was how often each year. I said, Councilor Callahan just yes.
[Zac Bears]: I think each each year makes sense. Do we want to say each year annually?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I don't know if it matters. I just, I don't think it would really sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: And do we also want to accept the other inline changes, not necessarily the comments on the right, but the inline changes proposed by Council?
[Zac Bears]: OK. And if that's fine, if we can just have that be an amendment to Councilor Collins' motion. There's a couple additions, adding section 3861, removing the word fuel, removing the word any, which comes up twice. Okay, is there a second? Are you good? Is there a second on the motion? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. We'll hold it for discussion. At this point, are there any other talks of discussion by members of the council or motions by a member of the council? Seeing none, Mr. Commissioner, do you have any comments after the motions that have been made that you'd like to share with us?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you and welcome and appreciate you being here to serve the city. We'll now open it up to members of the public who would like to speak. You can come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. We have a few folks on Zoom and we'll take your name and address for the record. If you have any comments on the draft ordinance and any changes that you may like to see or if you, anything else you'd like to say about it. Good evening again. Good evening, name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: in like me personally or the city? I'm just wondering how many complaints they received. I mean, I've certainly received many in my personal capacity and as a Councilor, I don't know. Can I have a number? Commissioner, do we have a statistic on that? No, we don't have a statistic on that.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I don't know how many people will be filing individual complaints.
[Zac Bears]: It was gas by 2026, but electric would still be year round allowed.
[Zac Bears]: For commercial operators and owners of large property, and then four years for the average resident and for the city.
[Zac Bears]: Some of them at night, some of them during the big sweep all day.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna go to Zoom. I'm gonna go to who I think is Harold McGilvery. Name and address for the record, please. Apologies if it's not you, Harry. Hi, can you hear me? We can hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. McGilvery. I'm going to go to Mr. Castagnetti. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: You are on. Name and address for the record, please, Mr. Castagnetti.
[Zac Bears]: Currently, this is just an ordinance regarding leaf blowers.
[Zac Bears]: That is certainly regulated above our level. Mr. Cassidy. Thank you. Mr. Giglio on zoom name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Any thoughts or comments on lithium batteries from members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: You can recycle them at Home Depot. They're recyclable.
[Zac Bears]: They turn them into new batteries.
[Zac Bears]: They sell them at the store.
[Zac Bears]: I see Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: And Councilor Scarpelli, go to Ellen on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: I'm sure we'll receive the school committee does the school budget. There's an impact on the city. That'll be addressed in the city budget when we receive it.
[Zac Bears]: I think the city will work around what the legal requirements are to make sure that it keeps the property.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to everyone.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments? Councilor Tseng then we'll go to Mr. Kears.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan, Mr. Kearse, and then I'm going to go back to Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: I prefer we not get into a back and forth, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think anyone knows the pound amounts of metals or electrical.
[Zac Bears]: How big is the battery?
[Zac Bears]: For an electric vehicle? Yes. Okay. So much bigger than what we're talking about here.
[Zac Bears]: I asked the question last night and nobody could answer it. I got about 7,500 Councilor Collins and saying we're a little over 7,000. Councilor Lazzaro and Callahan were in the 6,000s as long as Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Leming was around 5,800. Yeah, it's also pretty much the highest amount that's happened in a recent municipal election for council seats.
[Zac Bears]: Let's not go with the back and forth. Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro and Mr. Kearse.
[Zac Bears]: It was the highest number of votes for people on the school committee and city council since we switched to plan A government in 1987. Absolutely, that's great.
[Zac Bears]: Well, we all worked and spent in sums of money and raised money to try to encourage more people to vote. And I think we'd all be very happy if more people did. I'm going to go to Anthony on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the public? Any comment from or any motions from members of the council? Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: this is the seventh public meeting on actually the eighth public meeting public meeting over the past eight public meetings on it.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion, we need to take the motion to adopt the amendments first. Sorry about that.
[Zac Bears]: So we do have the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. to adopt the in line amendments of the legal counsel as well as the amendments that you have verbally stated tonight. And when you're ready, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, 60 affirmative one of the negative emotion passes their motion from Councilor Collins. Motion to report the paper out of committee as amended. Seconded by Councilor Callaghan. Oh, sorry, my apologies on the motion Councilor Callaghan discussion.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan, was it just to report out of committee or to report out of committee and adjourn? Sorry, on the motion of Councilor Collins to report out of committee and adjourn, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean affirmative. None of the negative. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Present, seven present, none absent, please rise to salute the flag.
[Zac Bears]: We're going to respect everybody to speak, as we have at our previous meetings. Everyone will get an amount of time. And if we're going to do stuff like that, we're going to recess or adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, yes, Councilor Scarpelli, if you wanna enforce the fact that this is gonna be a respectful space, but if it's not, we're not gonna disrupt the public meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Scarapelli. And as I said, everyone will get a chance to be heard, but we're not going to jeer and shout when people talk. You're welcome to clap when someone's done. but we're not gonna interrupt each other and we're gonna have a respectful and orderly meeting. And if not, we're gonna address that. The records of the meeting of February 6th, 2024 passed to Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins, how did you find the records?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Collins has moved approval, seconded by? Second. Councilor Tseng, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative, none in the negative. The meeting records from February 6th are approved. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. On the motion of Vice President Collins to take those papers out of order, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. And if folks in the back wouldn't mind, if you could just close the doors so if people are speaking out in the hallway, we don't hear them on the system in here.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, none in the negative. We are taking the following papers out of order. 24-044, a petition for a cleaning and dyeing license by Antoine Vo. Petition for cleaning and dyeing license by Antoine Vo, DUK Laundromat, DBA Leased Laundry, 281 Boston Avenue, Medford MA 02155. We have all the requisite reports on file. I'll go to the Chair of Licensing, Permitting, and Science, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to move approval. Any further questions by members of the council? Seeing none, is there a second on the motion? Councilor Lazzaro, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmatives are in the negative. The license is approved. Thank you, Mr. Vo.
[Zac Bears]: 24-040 Election Warrant, March 5th, 2024 Presidential Primary. Dear Mr. Clerk, I am writing on behalf of the Election Commission to request the attached to the Election Warrant be included in the Council's package for the upcoming Council meeting. To this end, we require to seek the Council's signature on the Election Warrant to proceed with the necessary preparations for the upcoming Presidential Preferential Primary on Tuesday, March 5th, 2024. For what's the call to election has already been presented to and approved by the Council body, Election Commission Chair Malorin, Member DiBenedetto.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any questions from members of the council moving forward? Seeing none, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to accept the election warrant, seconded by?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. And has everybody here signed the warrant? Yes, I have. Great.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes and the warrant is accepted.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, everyone. Please vote Tuesday, March 5th, or at early voting or by mail. 24-039, request to accept the provisions of MGL, Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 22G, related to the real estate tax exemptions for qualifying veterans. I will welcome our assessor, Ted Costigan, for explanation and comment. Mr. Costigan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and Mr. Costigan, just to clarify, this is just enabling certain types of ownership to be eligible for the veteran's exemption of the property tax levy?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Any questions, members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Costigan. Any further questions? Councilor Collins?
[Zac Bears]: Second. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. And I saw in your request there is no waiver or extended advertising because we're adopting state law. So you're good.
[Zac Bears]: Appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks. Mr. Simpons, could you read me back the order again?
[Zac Bears]: All right, 24046, request to exempt Fire Chief position from civil service law. February 15th, 2024, to Honorable President, members of the Medford City Council, Medford City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, re-removal of Fire Chief position from civil service. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respect the request and recommend that your Honorable body vote to submit a request pursuant to Article II, Section 8, Paragraph 1, Clause 1 of the Amendments to the Constitution of Massachusetts, as amended by Article 89, that state senator name and state representative name submit special legislation to the general court seeking to remove the position of fire chief in Medford Fire Department from the civil service law, General Law Chapter 31, which would divest the position from all rights and obligations set forth in General Law Chapter 31, your vote, and the legislation would have no effect on civil service status of any other member of the fire department or any other employee of the city of Medford. The special act would provide as follows, an act exempting the position of fire chief in the city of Medford from the civil service law, be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in general court assembled and by the authority of the same as follows. Section one, the position of fire chief in the city of Medford shall be exempt from chapter 31 of the general laws. Section two, section one shall not impair the civil service status of any person holding the position of fire chief in the city on the effective act of the state. Section three, this act shall take effect upon its passage by way of background of the approximately 102 municipal fire departments that are subject to the civil service law. Approximately 51 departments or 50% have a civil service chief in recent years. Municipalities have sought to accept the position of fire chief from chapter 31 for various reasons. Among one of the main reasons that municipalities have sought to exempt the position from Chapter 31 is because once a fire chief is appointed under the current civil service system, they are essentially lifetime appointments and the procedures which the municipality would have to follow to make a change in the position and the standard the municipality would have to satisfy in order to do so are avoidably burdensome with the ever-changing nature and fluidity of the fire profession. Currently, the needs of the city maintain little notice. The chief needs to be able to quickly change, adapt, and work with the changing needs of the city to ensure proper supervision of the department and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. By removing the position from civil service, the city would be able to annually evaluate the chief's performance on a predetermined contractual basis. The city would have the ability to negotiate removal. and non reappointment clauses with the individual in the position rather than being bound to the de facto lifetime appointment that comes with the civil service law. The city additionally would not be bound to the constructive measures that exist in civil service relative to appointments to the position of fire chief under civil service and applicant pool. is generally limited and certain scenarios are utilized when either a test or assessment center is administered for the position. In order to post a test, the city must work with the understaffed civil service HRD unit. This requires back and forth of multiple forms and processes that are generally unnecessary or redundant. Subjects must create online profiles, submit more required forms and documents electronically, and pay fees to the Commonwealth. The city must then wait for civil service to process all forms and payments, which can take months. They must then conduct a bid for a vendor to deliver the exam and arrange a date that works for the city, the vendor, and for a civil service representative to be present. This again pushes up the timeline. Outside of the constraints of civil service and through its own procurement process, the city would solicit bids from vendors who have experience in conducting fire service assessment centers. For a fire chief, the request for proposals would seek a qualified consultant to design, validate, administer, and score an assessment center. In order to create a promotional eligible list from which to promote a candidate to the position, the city would be able to offer a better test to a larger and more diverse pool of applicants that could draw interest from applicants throughout the Commonwealth as well as nationally. This process would better allow the city and fire department to evolve, maximize its budget, manage the department and fill a vital position in a more expedited manner through its own appointment process. the city would be in a better position to diversify the department without jumping through hoops that civil service requires when asking for specialized certification. It would also allow the city more flexibility on the quote scenarios presented during the test by removing the fire chief from civil service. The city would be replacing an outdated and cumbersome procedure with an updated and efficient one. Given the fire chief's pending retirement and the resulting vacancy in the position, now is the opportune time for the council to act. The removal of the fire chief from civil service will serve to propel the department in the right direction going forward, and it would be in the best interest of the residents of the city. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Brianne Alamogordo, mayor.
[Zac Bears]: I would like to recognize the administration so they can present the paper before we move to council comment.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Madam Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, we will go to the mayor.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Mayor. We'll go to members of the council. Zack? Zack? All right, just if we could close the doors, please, again, I ask so we can hear in the room and hear everyone's comments. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Okay, Councilor Scarpelli, we're gonna go to other councilors. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: if I ask you questions.
[Zac Bears]: According to this proposal, it would not change their civil service status. It would just change who is able... It says the law specifically says The section one shall not impair the civil service status of any person. Oh, sorry. The position of fire chief for the city of Medford. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I don't. If you want to direct questions to the administration, we can all speak and then we can hear from the administration if they want to answer the question. That would be helpful.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not policing anyone's speech here. So if we could just step back from the podium, and we're gonna, no one.
[Zac Bears]: We're not gonna go back here. And we're not gonna have outbursts. And again, I wouldn't. Interrupting Councilor Scarpelli, we're not gonna interrupt other councilors. Councilor Lazzaro, you have the floor.
[Zac Bears]: If you're gonna have conversations, please take them outside.
[Zac Bears]: Great, I have that down. We'll go back to the administration.
[Zac Bears]: Well, if folks would not have conversations and not leave the doors open, it's difficult to hear. It's difficult to hear in this room when people are shouting, when the doors are open, when there's conversations happening. So I please ask that people respect everyone who's speaking.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I have a question from Councilors for the Administration. Are there any other questions for the Administration from members of the Council? Oh, Anna, sorry, Councilor Callaghan, I recognize you, then if folks have questions, let me know. Councilor Callaghan.
[Zac Bears]: Are there any questions from members of the council for the administration? All right, we have Councilor Lazzaro's question, which was regarding, you can repeat it if you wanna phrase it.
[Zac Bears]: We have the chief of staff, the mayor and the HR director. Do any of you want to field that question? You can raise your hand and I can unmute you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further questions from members of the council? For the administration, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: go to the chief of staff or go to the mayor has raised her hand, I'll go to the mayor.
[Zac Bears]: The questions were about if a position hasn't been promoted and has the position been offered to anyone on an interim or permanent basis?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're gonna, you know, if there's a response to the administration or any other questions for the administration, we'll go there now. Any other questions from Councilors? Anything you'd like to clarify on your end, Madam Chief of Staff or Madam Mayor? All right, seeing none. How many people in this room would like to speak tonight? Please raise your hand. All right, that is a reasonable number of people. Last week, two weeks ago, we had over 70 people speak in public comment, so I made a decision as chair to go to two minutes. Seeing that we have about 10 people tonight, we're gonna go by the city council rules, which are five minutes. and I'm going to ask you, just if you could, we have a piece of paper over there, Mr. Buckley, you can go after. Just for the record, we have assistant clerk Sylvina with us tonight. Just for our records, we're asking people to sign up, so we make sure we get your name and your address correct for speaking. So I'm gonna start timer, five minutes, I'll give a 30 second warning, and we will go to you, Mr. Buckley.
[Zac Bears]: As has been our principle, I'm going to go to Guy Manganiello on Zoom. You can speak for five minutes. Please give your name and address for the record. And the hand is gone.
[Zac Bears]: All right, we'll go to Mr. Jones. Name and address for the record, and you'll have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Tap the microphone base. I think it shut off.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming, if you'd like to clarify and I'll pause your time. So,
[Zac Bears]: To refresh my memories... I'll put you back on. Sorry, go ahead. What's the clarification?
[Zac Bears]: The early...
[Zac Bears]: If I may, I'd like to avoid further back and forth. I appreciate the clarification. I don't think we wanted to go on this. We don't want to hear from everybody, but I appreciate you asking, Mr. Jones. I'll go back to you. I think we have a clear understanding of what to respond to.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, who does that now? We put one in- Public records officers, Janice.
[Zac Bears]: I will give the administration- I'd love to get it.
[Zac Bears]: The current process is that we reach out to the mayor, the chief of staff, and KP Law when we need legal support.
[Zac Bears]: It's delaying, I would say.
[Zac Bears]: We have had legal representation at several times when we requested it, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Jones, you have about 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: I do have, Mr. Kennedy, if you just give me a moment, we have the Chief of Staff has a hand raised, Madam Chief of Staff on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Jones, we're gonna let everybody who's had a chance, we wanna hear from everybody if you wanna speak.
[Zac Bears]: I'm giving everyone five minutes, but once we've gone through everyone who likes to speak, once we can hear folks again. Is there someone who'd like to speak next? Write your name down, thank you. And if you have spoken or would like to speak, please give your name to the city messenger.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I will go back. We'll go to round two. Well, first I'll go to the chief of staff, then I'll go to Mr. Jones. And as we've noted, all of us would like to not have this be an extensive back and forth, but I will recognize folks for a second time. Chief of staff Nazarian, and then Mr. Jones.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you. There were a couple people I saw stand up, which is why I didn't want to do the back and forth, because if we do back and forth people keep standing up trying to rebut each other. I saw Mr. Cormier, I saw Mr. Souza. You haven't had a chance to speak yet, so I'd like to let them go, Mr. Jones, if you don't mind. I'll be brief.
[Zac Bears]: We're not gonna go into the direct back and forth, but I appreciate the question. I don't think anybody knows.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Merritt, name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Glad we could do that.
[Zac Bears]: Nate. Hey, Nate. Could you just put your name down? We have a sign in list for this one so we get the records right. The clerk's not here tonight. We have assistant clerk Sylvia DePlaza. Thank you. You haven't spoken yet, Ms.
[Zac Bears]: I'm keeping a stack in my head. We also have the chief of staff who wants to speak a third time, but we'll let him speak a second time.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: We're gonna go to Jess Healy on Zoom. Jess, please give your name and address for the record, and you have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. McGilvery, you haven't spoken yet. I would have known if you did. If you could just leave your name with Larry, thank you. Five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Is there anyone who has spoken once who'd like to speak again?
[Zac Bears]: Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Welcome, thank you. Name and address for the record, you have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You can come up if you'd like to speak. Name and address for the record you have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: All right, anyone else who'd like to speak for the first or second time? I'm gonna go to the Chief of Staff for the third one. I'd really like to keep it to three for everyone. I'd like us all to respect everyone who's spoken, even if we disagree with them.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing none, I will go to the podium. Mr. McGilvrey, just give your name and address.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Me too.
[Zac Bears]: The hand is gone. If you would like to speak, please raise your hand again. In the meantime, I'll go to just Healy on zoom name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Any further public comment? Mrs. Lonergan, name and address for the record, please. Uh-oh.
[Zac Bears]: If you could keep it brief, I would like to learn quite a bit.
[Zac Bears]: My understanding is if they had already had enough credit, then it would add to their credit, but if they... I don't see how it would be possible that someone would start at zero years as a chief of fire in the state, so... Fair, fair point, fair point. Thank you. All right, any further comment from members of the public?
[Zac Bears]: We're not going to, we can't just ask those questions.
[Zac Bears]: Have they been in Medford for two years? The qualification to be a voter is the same as an elected official. Everyone here is a registered voter in the city of Medford.
[Zac Bears]: Answer personal questions.
[Zac Bears]: I think many, many, many people know how long I've been here. I'm not going to ask any of my colleagues to respond. Well, Ms. Douglas is one of my great teachers. And I respect that. And every person who is a resident of the city has a voice and a vote. And we have a majority vote.
[Zac Bears]: That's fine. I respect your opinion. You can continue to speak. But we're not going to be obligated to answer your questions. You should be. You work for us.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, I think these have been raised for a while.
[Zac Bears]: Director Crowley, would you like to speak? I'll ask you to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to the podium, then I'm going to go to Melissa Tobin on Zoom, then Mr. Pacheco on Zoom, then Councilor Collins, then Councilor Scarpellilli, then Councilor Callahan. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Um, to the last question, I think the reason that it is the way it is because of the civil service process.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, Miss Tobin, we can look into that and we can try to get the answer to that question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're going to go to who I think may be Luis Pacheco now on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: And if you could just sign in with Larry when you're done. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Lisa, I've unmuted you. You have five minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: You may come to the podium, you have five minutes, name and address for the record, and sign in with Larry if you have to.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone else in the room who hasn't spoken would like to speak? All right, I'm going to go to Melissa Tobin on Zoom. This is your second time. Name and address for the record. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Scarpelli or any other Councilors, do you have questions for Attorney Major at this time?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment from members of the public?
[Zac Bears]: And last name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Attorney Mazur, you have the floor.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to refer to Committee of the Whole and have legal counsel present at the meeting, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Fleming. Further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: We have a motion on the floor. We have motions on the floor. We're going to take the motions at this point.
[Zac Bears]: do councilors have questions at this time to ask of the city administration or other parties?
[Zac Bears]: One is a motion by Councilor Collins to refer to committee, seconded by Councilor Leming. Second is a motion to reject by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by?
[Zac Bears]: Oh, you cannot be. Please respect the meeting.
[Zac Bears]: pursuant to Robert's rules, a motion to refer to committee takes precedence over a motion on the main motion, so we will take a vote on the motion of Councilor Collins to refer to committee, seconded by Councilor Leming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: 24-043, request to approve Fiscal Year 24 Community Preservation Fund Annual Application Appropriations. We had a meeting on the 10 appropriations at 6 p.m. They are one, 69,000 from the CPA General Reserve to Housing Families for Homelessness Prevention Pro Bono Legal Services Program. Two, 50,000 from the Historic Preservation Reserve to the Cemetery Division for the Oak Grove Cemetery Access Road Study. 3. The appropriation of $200,000 from the CPA General Reserve to the City of Medford Cemetery Division for the Oak Grove Cemetery Access Buildings Restoration Project. The appropriation of $229,000 to the Logan Park Play Area Project, $10,000 for the Salem Street Burying Ground Conditions Assessment, $205,525 for the Tufts Park Basketball Court Resurfacing, $106,625 for Capen Park Basketball Resurfacing, $99,965 for the Mass Brooks Estate ADA Pathways and Parking Improvements Project, $98,275 for the Brooks Estate East Elevation ADA Improvements, and $4,800 for the Cross Street Cemetery Conditions Assessment. At this point, I will recognize Teresa DuPont, CPA Manager, if you want to give us your presentation, and then we can hear from Councilors, and then we can move to a vote.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Teresa. If you could answer that question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by... seconded by Councilor Tseng. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes and the appropriations requests are approved. Thank you, Teresa. 23-411, planned development district special permit, one and three to 20, walk-in court. Public hearing notice, Medford City Council, February 20th, 2024, one and three to 20, walk-in court. The Medford City Council will hold a public hearing on February 20th at 7 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chamber on the second floor of Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, and via Zoom relative to an application for a planned development a special permit, and site plan review submitted by the Medford Housing Authority for the demolition of all existing buildings on the site and to be replaced by a mid-rise building with 198 apartments for elders and seniors, and four buildings with family units, 24 units in a low-rise building and 16 townhomes in three buildings. The zoom link to the public hearing will be posted no later than February 16 2024. The full application materials can be viewed in the Office of Planning Development and Sustainability City Hall room 308, or on the city's website at www.medfordma.org slash department slash planning dash development dash sustainability by clicking on current CD board filings. So how we're going to take this is we're going to hear a presentation by the petitioners, and then we will open the public hearing after that. So if the petitioners from Medford Housing Authority would like to come up and present the project, and then we will open the public hearing. I can share the presentation that you guys have. Just let me know what slides you'd like to be looking at. Sure, are you on Zoom? You can either email it to me or get on Zoom, whatever's easier for you. Sure.
[Zac Bears]: It's going to take a minute. If you would like to say something before we start the presentation.
[Zac Bears]: It's going to take a minute here. Could you provide a pre-verbal introduction to the project? I could also share the presentation I received earlier. Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Driscoll. Thank you all for the presentation. Thank you for bearing with me. We have considered this at this point several times as a city council. We passed the PDD3 zoning and a number of other things. So when we talk about an abbreviated presentation, we have seen this presentation several times at this point. We're well aware of what it contains. I have one technical question for you, and then we'll open up the public hearing. is the $50,000 for the tree fund, or for trees. We'll leave tree fund for another day. Is that a condition of the Community Development Board recommendations? Okay, so we'll need to do that along with the Community Development Board recommendations. Thank you. At this point, do councilors have any questions for the petitioner? Any comments they'd like to make to Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further questions? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments by members of the council? All right, whereas this is a public hearing, I'm going to open the public hearing to comment. People can give comment, put their comments on the record. They can comment that they're in favor, they're against, or otherwise. So I'm opening the public hearing now. If you'd like to speak regarding this project, you can come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom, and we will recognize you. If you are in the room, I do ask that you just give your name and address to Messenger. Lepore, Lepore, who hates when I call him that, to Larry. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know who said they didn't receive it, but your letter was included in the packets. I watched Larry put them in the folders, so somebody didn't look at them.
[Zac Bears]: I read them. You did? Yes. I know. I can't speak for exactly what people have read, but I do know that the material was provided to them.
[Zac Bears]: We received it last Thursday.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Tom Lincoln on Zoom next. I also just want to say we did receive two written comments, at least I did by email. I don't know what the clerk received. One from Trees Medford regarding the $50,000 mitigation. They said this is an excellent first step. They made two points concerning the condition. First, that the funds be exclusively to the cost of purchasing and planting additional trees, and they'd like that to be clear in the special permit language. And the second, that the 50,000 represents about half of their estimated cost for mitigation, and that the Medford Housing Authority agreed to collaborate in the search for grant funds. Of course, it is incumbent on the city of Medford to secure full mitigation funding. to address the effects of climate change and the enhanced critical role of trees and climate resiliency and quality of life. I will go to Tom Lincoln on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please, Tom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to anyone in the room who would like to speak. Mr. Cross, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Carol. Mary Ann, I'm going to let people who haven't spoken yet speak. So if there's anyone who'd like to speak in the chamber, and then there's one more person on Zoom, then I can come back to you. Name and address for the record, please. And if you could leave it with the messenger, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: That's a complicated question. There's a, I don't wanna speak for Jeff, but there's a lot of variety of funding, a small amount from the CPA, 800,000 of $145 million project. There's low income housing tax credits. There's some state aid, maybe some ARPA.
[Zac Bears]: So mostly state and federal, and it sounds like only 1 to 2% city.
[Zac Bears]: All right.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna go to Alex on Zoom. Alex, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Alex. Anyone else in the room who hasn't spoken yet on this topic, would they like to speak? come to the podium, name and address for the record, please. I got two of you. Who wants to go first?
[Zac Bears]: The city funds have already been approved from the CPA.
[Zac Bears]: It's the Community Preservation Committee. It's already done. It's the 1.5% CPA surcharge that's matched by state funds. It goes to fund affordable housing, open space and recreation, and historical preservation. It's been in effect for about seven years.
[Zac Bears]: I'm actually going to go to Zoom and link them back to you. Roberta Cameron, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. I'm going to go to Zoom. I see Director Hunt. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members in person or on Zoom?
[Zac Bears]: Um, but to the to the city, I believe the total city contribution is 1.95 million in CPA funding. Uh, the total cost is 100. I get around 140 116,000,016 million and a total of how many units will end up.
[Zac Bears]: That I'm, I can't answer I'm not sure how the public housing law works on that, but I do know that all the residents in that development have a right to return to it once it's complete.
[Zac Bears]: It is managed by the Medford Housing Authority, but I believe this project is turning it from state public housing to federal public housing.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Did you register your name with the messenger? Thank you. Any further public comment in this public hearing? Seeing none, the public hearing is closed. We have the recommendations of the Community Development Board. We have the request for a specific language to incorporate into the conditions from Therese Medford. And I will go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I have it here. It's a that $50,000 mitigation payment to the city of Medford by the Medford Housing Authority will be exclusively for the cost of purchasing and On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming, Madam Clerk, please call the roll on the motion to approve and adopt the conditions of the Community Development Board for site plan review, as well as the language around the tree mitigation.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes and the conditions are adopted. Good news for everyone tonight, the MBTA left 35 minutes ago, so we will be hearing from the PATI of the MBTA on March 12th at our next regular meeting. Is there a motion to revert to the regular order of business? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to revert to the regular order of business, seconded by Vice President Collins, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: We're having a hard time hearing you, Anna.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, zero the negative. We revert to the regular order of business. Reports of committees. We have five reports. Is there a motion to? Great. Motion to join and approve motions on the reports of committees. We have the subcommittee on licensing, permitting, and signs report. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Public Health and Community Safety, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro, Council Vice President Collins planning and permitting committee.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Tseng, Governance Committee.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng, and I would remind all Councilors, please, if there were motions to amend the governing agenda, please forward those to myself and Vice President Collins. If there were motions to request feedback from members of your committee, please send that by email to your committee. And if there are motions to have city staff or others represented at your next committee meeting, please send emails to invite them or ask the clerk to do that. on the motion of Councilor Tseng to join and approve these five committee reports, seconded by Vice President Collins. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: She said, I need a I need a verbal. We can't be typing votes in the chat. So you can go ahead and go to the rest of them. We'll come back to Councilor Callahan. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, great 70 affirmative. None of the negative motion passes 24-036 resolution to discuss an overgrowth ordinance be resolved by Vice President Collins be resolved at the Public Health and Community Safety Committee discuss an overgrowth ordinance Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Motion by Vice President Collins to refer this paper to Public Health and Community Safety Committee, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative and negative. Motion passes and the item is referred to public health and community safety. 24-041 resolution to develop real estate transfer fee home roll petition. Whereas the city of Medford requires approval from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to impose a real estate transfer fee. And whereas 18 other communities in Massachusetts have submitted home roll petitions to impose local real estate transfer fees. And whereas real estate transfer fees can create a sustainable funding stream for needed housing production and affordable housing production in Medford. by levying a small fee on certain real estate transactions. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Committee on Planning and Permitting meet to develop a Home Rule petition, quote, an act authorizing the City of Medford to impose a real estate transfer fee. Councilor Collins. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli has invoked rule 21, which states that any finance paper appearing on the council agenda for the first time shall be automatically laid on the table when such action is requested by any member. So that is an automatic action. This paper is on the table for our next regular meeting. 24041. 24-042, resolution to discuss implementation of the Housing Stability Notification Ordinance. Be it resolved that the Planning and Permitting Committee meet with relevant city staff to discuss and evaluate the implementation and enforcement of the Housing Stability Notification Ordinance 22-377. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: So if we could just clear the room, please, so we can continue the meeting. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Collins, it's still a little hard to hear me, just wait one more moment. We can take our conversations outside to the hall, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. On the motion of Councilor Collins to refer to the Committee on Planning and Permitting. Seconded by... Sorry, what was that, Emily?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further discussion? Any discussion by members of the public? On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan is absent and we can mark her absent for the remainder of the meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Do you want to speak? You almost missed it. Mr. Castagnetti, you can come to the podium and give your name and address for the rec.
[Zac Bears]: You're making $1,700,000. All right, we're gonna keep it here, thank you. Okay. Okay. Andrew, if you could just direct your comments to the chair.
[Zac Bears]: I hear you. And I apologize.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng to refer to the subcommittee on planning, or the planning and permitting committee. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Is absent.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. Motion passes. Madam Vice Chair, if you would take the chair for my paper.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Uh, resolution is pretty self explanatory, but one of the things we've been working on in the former ordinances and rules and now the administration and Finance Committee, um. is the budget ordinance. And the framework of the budget ordinance has us working on the budget significantly earlier than we normally would. We'll have it submitted to us in final form as it says here by May 31st. But also having preliminary budget meetings between April 15th and May 15th before the budget is released, which is new. So we will have input before the budget comes out. and then we can hold further meetings in June as we decide at our discretion of different departments after the budget comes out. But I wanted to make sure, just realizing that we're coming up against it, we're not gonna have the ordinance passed, but we agreed in principle to follow the timeline within the ordinance for this budget cycle. So that requires us to get going pretty soon, March 1, if councilors have budget recommendations, that they would like to send in for consideration. Please send those to the city clerk who will submit it. There's a typo in here. I apologize. It should say under by March 1st 2024 city councilors submit individual budget recommendations for consideration by committee of the whole. So if we could amend the paper to reflect that. We will then have a meeting on March 6th regarding those recommendations. We can have further meetings as needed with our deadline of submitting them to the mayor by March 22nd, and then having preliminary meetings from April 15th to May 15th with the deputants of the various departments. before the mayor submits the comprehensive budget proposal on May 31st. So I think this is a significant upgrade to the past where we've gotten budgets at the end of the day. We haven't had consideration. We haven't had meetings. We haven't had the time to ask questions. We certainly haven't had our recommendations duly considered before the budget was released. So I invite all councillors to submit and we can discuss it. And I am continually hopeful that the administration will meet us where we are on this and help us have a much more robust budget process over four months of where in the past it has happened in four weeks or less. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Just to that question, had some conversations there has not been numbers included those conversations. My understanding is that we are still in a similar place to where we were a year ago with what we were discussing the fiscal 24 budget that fiscal 25 was going to be a cliff year with the ARPA and ESSER funding. I completely understand your point. I think my first hope is we can come up with our initial recommendations and then have discussions while we start to get the information from the mayor. I have heard from several department heads that they did get requests to start putting together their budget. Library trustees had a meeting with the mayor last week. So I think we're seeing some movement there. I think personally, it's just my philosophy. know we all know that we we've had a million times agreed we need five people for a sidewalk crew or whatever you know we know they're probably not going to happen this year but i think it's important to let people know we need it that's just my philosophy but i think more importantly uh if there are positions that are federal funded ARPA funded ESSER funded that we say are like we can't be losing this one those are the kinds of recommendations we may be in that kind of year like we really need one to stay on. And that's a tough, you know, obviously we don't wanna be picking and choosing it, but if that's where we are, that may be the kind of recommendation. I'd much rather be making a recommendation to do something new than save something we already have. But that's, I think that should be considered as part of this process as well. If there's a position or a program that any councilor identifies that is, you know, we really would like to keep it going.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you. I accept the amendment happily to request the list of ARPA positions.
[Zac Bears]: Public participation, to participate outside of Zoom, please email ahertabese at medfordma.gov. Is there any public participation on any topic that anyone would like to talk about? We get esoteric here sometimes, thanks to some of our guests. Some of y'all have been waiting forever, so just feel free to let it all out. We do have a hand on Zoom. Alyssa, I would ask that you, I will unmute you, but please give your name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Transfer fee was on the agenda, but it was postponed to our next regular meeting on March 12th. Discussions on rent stabilization and other tenant rights and tenant protections is currently in the planning and permitting committee. Do you have a date for the next discussion on that?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, so it is in planning and permitting, but we do not have a confirmed date for the next discussion on those items.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment? We have Mike Kroll. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: So the city council meets every Tuesday and Wednesday. Generally, there are some exceptions to that, holidays, et cetera. And our agendas are available at medfordma.org for the planning and permitting committee. That meeting is every second and fourth Wednesday at 6 p.m. So that is where the rent stabilization petition is currently under consideration. however, no confirmed date for the next meeting. And for the transfer fee, that will be on the agenda for our March 12th regular meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comments? Yeah, exactly. Any further comment? Probably participation. Seeing none, is there a motion on the floor? Motion by Councilor Collins to adjourn, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll one last time. Bring it home, baby.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council, Committee of the Whole, February 20th, 2024. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan is at home with a sick kid, so may be joining us on Zoom, but I don't see her right now.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Six present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council, Committee of the Whole, February 20th, 2024 at 6 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chamber. And that meeting the action discussion item 24043 submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn request to approve fiscal year 2024 Community Preservation Fund annual application appropriations. We have from the Community Preservation Committee, I respect the request and recommend your honorable body approve the following recommendations. One, requesting appropriation of $69,000 from the CPA General Reserve to housing families for the Homelessness Prevention Pro Bono Legal Services Program. Requesting the appropriation of $50,000 from the Historic Preservation Reserves to City of Medford Cemetery Division for the Oak Grove Cemetery Access Road Study. Requesting appropriation of $200,000 to the Cemetery for the Oak Grove Cemetery Access Buildings Restoration Project. Requesting the appropriation of $229,000 to the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability for the Logan Park Natural Play Area Project. Requesting the appropriation of $10,000 for the Salem Street Burying Ground Conditions Assessment. Requesting the appropriation of $205,525 for the Tufts Park Basketball Court Resurfacing Project. Requesting the appropriation of $100,625 for the Capen Park basketball court resurfacing project, requesting the appropriation of 99,965 to M-Belt for the ADA Pathways and Parking Improvements Project at the Medford Brooks Estate, requesting the appropriation of 98,275 to the Medford Brooks Estate Land Trust for the East Elevation ADA Improvements, and requesting the appropriation of 4,800 for the Cross Street Cemetery Conditions Assessment that's going to the cemetery trustees. The CPC's recommendation letters are attached and incorporated. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Brianna Lugo, current mayor. And at this point, I will turn it over to our CPC manager and our CPC chair, Teresa Dupont and Roberta Cameron, to give a short presentation, and then we'll hear from the applicants, or at least some of them. The floor is yours.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. Do we want to go in order of the letter you sent in here from applicants and ask questions?
[Zac Bears]: Before we do that, do we have any general questions from the council about this funding round? Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Yep.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Madam Clerk, could you note that Councilor Callaghan is here on Zoom? and I'll go to Councilor Leming. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: All right, let's go through in order. We have our first one, which we already got into, but the 69,002 Housing Families for Homelessness Prevention Pro Bono Legal Services Program. Anything you want to add? And I know we've done it in the past.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions from councilors on that item number one?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the second, the appropriation of $50,000 for the Cemetery Division from the Historic Preservation Reserve for the Oak Grove Cemetery Access Road Study.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any questions from councilors on that item? Seeing none, the appropriation of $200,000 from the CPA General Reserve to the Cemetery Division for the Cemetery Access Buildings Restoration Project.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any questions on that item? Seeing none. The fourth item, 229,000 from the CPA General Reserve to the Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability for the Logan Park Natural Play Area project.
[Zac Bears]: Justin, can you just shut off your microphone? Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, well, once you get out there, they're like behind the speakers. Sure, sure.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further questions? Seeing none, on the fifth item, appropriation of $10,000 for the Salem Street Burying Ground Conditions Assessment.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any questions from members of the council? Seeing none, number 6, 205,525,000 from the CPA General Reserve to the Parks Division for Tufts Park Basketball Court.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions on that one?
[Zac Bears]: Cape and Park as well? Yes. Great. That's the next one. That's $106,625 from the General Reserve CPA to the Parks Division for Cape and Park. Correct. All right. Number eight. Requesting the appropriation of $99,965 from the Historic Preservation Reserve to Medford Brooks Estate Land Trust for ADA pathways and parking improvements. I'll let you do it. I might be better.
[Zac Bears]: Amazing. And the only thing I'll add is that it's partially being matched by state funding through the ARPA program. And the only reason I know that is because I'm the city council appointee to the MBELT board. So I'm very involved and invested in the project. Any questions from councilors on Brooks Estate? On the next project for Brooks Estate is the $98,275 from the Historic Preservation Reserve for the East Elevation ADA improvements.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and it's the main accessible entrance. Yes. Great, any questions on that one? All right, last one, $4,800 from the Historic Preservation Reserve to the Cemetery Trustees for the Cross Street Cemetery Conditions Assessment.
[Zac Bears]: And not to editorialize, but Cross Street Cemetery was what used to be, it was displaced by the construction of Interstate 93, so all those graves were moved to Oak Grove.
[Zac Bears]: Fantastic, well that's the 10. Any questions on Cross Street Cemetery? for members of the council. Okay, any general questions from members of the council? Oh, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. So I go to Councilor Callahan and Councilor Tseng and Councilor Collins. and I will note that the value of properties in the city of Minnesota. You can't note anything as the chair. I can state a fact, George. You can step off, but George, what's the fact? You cannot. I can state facts. You cannot. Read Robert's rules. You cannot. It's a fact that the property value of the city is $13 billion, and we've spent a couple million. I understand your role. I do, sir. It's Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Scarpelli. and can state facts sir and don't don't know outbursts you're wrong i'm not councillor callahan
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Teresa.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Vice President Collins. Any further questions? All right, seeing none, we'll open it up to members of the public. If you have a comment on a specific item under this CPC request for appropriation, you may come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: You can't make points of information, but you can give public comment.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Any motions on the floor? Councilor Collins?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to report the paper out of committee by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. Since we have a member on Zoom, all votes will be roll call votes. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative, none the negative. This is reported out of committee. Any further motions?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor say to adjourn, seconded by. Second. Councilor Collins, all those in favor. Actually, I can't, we have to roll call, sorry. That's annoying. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. We're gonna be doing a lot of that tonight.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, to adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative and negative motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. We'll see everyone at seven o'clock.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears. Thank you, Chair Tseng. Yeah, just looking at this governing agenda, I think we're blessed in this governance committee to not have one of the super long ones like planning and permitting and even public health and resident services last night, I know, had a lot on there. Really, what is in the governing agenda here is what they, what this committee is responsible for, just go over it again, ordinances, rules, city charter, elections, departments, the city clerk law, law department, elections commission, boards and commissions, variety of relevant city ordinances, I think the ones that are really important to factor in here are Appendix B, the rules of the city council, Appendix C, or special acts that affect the city of Medford, and then Appendix D, which are special acts accepted by the city of Medford. So those are provisions of state law that affect the city. Major project updates to the city charter, estimated length and timing of project 12 to 18 months. I mean, for me, for 4 years, and even before that, I have been pushing for us to have an updated city charter and we really need 1. I think we all at this point, mostly the city agree that we should have a new city charter. This council has proposed home rule petitions to create an elected charter commission, which were not successful. We proposed 6 to 1 last year, some targeted charter amendments, which were not advanced to the state house by the mayor, which would have helped out around the budget. and appointments and support for the city council. So we have really put in a ton of work on that. The mayor also appointed a charter study committee on her own, which has been looking at charter ideas and You know they are supposed to provide a report at some point and then we can start the formal process technically charter amendments have to start with the city council so we can take a look at the research that they've come up with. And we can draft a new city charter, which I'm really excited to do, then we can send that to the mayor. With her approval, she can send it to the state House and state Senate and the governor for their approval. And then hopefully we can have a new charter in effect within the next 2, 3 or 4 years, depending on how that time timeline goes. So that would be, I think, really exciting for this community. I am super excited to get to work on it. Have a lot of great ideas. hopefully would like to see some of the changes that this council has already supported nearly unanimously be incorporated into any new charter as well. So I'm really looking forward to that work in this committee. I know we have it on here starting probably sometime in June. If we could start even earlier, I think that would be great. I think there are a lot of conversations that we could have even in advance of any final report by the Charter Study Committee to really just get going since we only have 23 months left in the term 22 almost, or almost 2 months to end and this project is supposed to be a year, year and a half. So. there's a lot there. I think the only other thing in here is oversight and engagement items. One is the elections department and two is the relevant city ordinances and regulations. We did receive a presentation on January 23rd from the elections manager and elections commission about issues with the November 2023 election. There are also issues with the November 2022 election. I think pretty unanimously the council was wanted more out of that report and those questions. We did receive more from the Elections Commission chair, Henry Malorin, so that was good. But since then, also, the election manager has resigned. So that is not good. There is a lot more. At this time, I think that's just a very major change, given that we're just several weeks out from the primary on March 5th. So regardless of figuring out what what we need to do to get this elections department, the funding and oversight that it needs to do its job effectively. I think the timing of having the main office staff person leave so close to an election is frustrating to say the least. So I'm sure we'll talk more about that, but my guess is that we won't really be able to engage anyone from that office until after the primary at this point. just because I know that they're running around working really hard to get it done. I trust in their efforts and the work that they're putting in, but I know that there is now only one full-time staff person working elections. We used to have five. So that is obviously a huge challenge. Last thing on here is just reviewing the relevant city ordinances and regulations. I think we've talked about this in every other committee. There's a number of outdated things. The most important one, biggest one being part one, the city charter, right? So we will be reviewing that, but I'm sure there are things in boards and commissions, officers and employees, the election section, and even taking a look at the special acts and the acts accepted by the council that could be worth our time. But that's really all that's in the governing agenda. I know we also have the paper on committee, paper and committee from Councilor Callahan about some pro-democracy reforms. That's also in committee, but that's my review of the governing agenda. Looking at it, there was nothing in the governing agenda that's missing from the meeting agenda from the papers and committee, so that's great. And I don't think we really had much else for this committee to take a look at. I think the charter, it's a big enough project on its own. If there are other things from councillors or members of the public around the rules of the city council or additional stuff around elections, I'm sure, I mean, I'd love to talk about it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Chair. Yes. I just want to say, you know, I appreciate the work of the study committee. One person appointed them. We've been elected. And for me personally, I'm certainly willing to look at their recommendations. But again, they're an appointed committee appointed by one person not appointed by even consult. There was no consultation with the city council and the creation of the committee, never mind the appointment of its members or the charge that it has or or the. I just want to I just think I would rather not. I think we could take whatever they have at a certain point and begin our work of going through it. But I think it should be procedurally, step by step. If there's additional material that they want to provide after we've started a certain date, then we can include that in our discussions. And I think that's a great thing. But I don't think we should try to work. I would personally not prefer a tandem process. I think their process can work. If there is a tandem process, I don't think it should be. I still think that the work product of the Charter Study Committee should come to the council and then the council can submit something to the administration. That's just my personal preference because I really, well, I understand that they're working hard and I appreciate the study that they've done and the conversations that they've had. There's a level of legitimacy and responsibility. that comes with being elected by the voters of the city versus being appointed by a single person. And I think also, given just the way that the law works on the charter, technically, the study committee is just an advisory committee that's going to give a report. It doesn't have any force of effective law. Well, I appreciate Councilor Lazzaro's comments. I just wouldn't want it to be like conference committee, like Senate and House, like, you know, if they don't agree, we don't do it. I don't think that that's, you know, at the end of the day, we're the ones who were elected to vote on this. And so if we disagree with the study committee on a recommendation that they make, then the version that we agree to in this chamber would be the one that would be submitted to the mayor, in my view. Or at least that's the process I would like to follow. I think that's all I have to say. Personally.
[Zac Bears]: This committee meets, I mean, maybe the April meeting of this committee can be the first. Because for me, I know that the Collins Center has met with the study committee, and they've had their subcommittees on different issues, and I think there's a ton of value there. I think the general framework of what they've been working on, from what I've been reading coming out of the reports, just structurally makes a lot of sense. there is a section that describes what the powers of X are or the timeline for Y are like. And so I don't, and I'm guessing at this point that the study committee is not, um, at least from the reports I've read, they're not like deciding what the basics are. So I think maybe in April, if the call center could come and give us some of the information that they've given to the study committee, we could, we could get going on, on some of the questions. If we agree to a structure, then we can go through those big bucket issues as well. If there are items where they've taken votes and issued a report out of their subcommittee, then we could take that information and start working there. If there are areas of the charter where they haven't made any determinations or votes, then maybe we could hold those off to the fall. I don't think it's reasonable. I don't think the timeline of we're not going to get anything. For me, December is way too late. It is, you know, I also just don't like the idea that we wouldn't be able to consider things until they've issued a final complete report. And not that you were saying that, but I think that they, that may be something that, I don't know what their opinion is or what the study committee's opinion is on that, but I think we should, I personally would not be willing to wait 10 months for a final report before we start considering it. And I would support the motion to start even earlier than June.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, Council Member Zora.
[Zac Bears]: My apologies if I misinterpreted.
[Zac Bears]: I would just note that that was at a regular meeting, so we don't have like a verbatim transcript, per se, of what the requests were. I believe we did make some motions, and I'm not sure if that's in the... Can I borrow your committee report, please? Requesting that governance meet with Elections Commission staff to review the reforms of the report. renewed requests for attendance record. So I believe we got the attendance records from Chairman Lawrence. Yes, we did. Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, having spoken with members of the Elections Commission, they want to do an updated version of the more clear after action report that is responsive to here was a problem, here was the solution, you know, that's kind of itemizing it out and saying here was an issue. Here's what we identified as the problem with that issue. Here's the solution that we're implementing to avoid that happening in the future. So I don't have any more motions to make, but I think just inviting them back to probably our March meeting and maybe even our April meetings.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to receive 24006 and place on file. And adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, my intent here, at least my intent was referring these out was that like the committees would look at the draft once and make sure that it matched up with what they had in committee. And then we set up alternatively the six, 12 and 18 month review of the governing agenda in committee of the whole. So we'll still come back to it and I'm sure anyone can file you know, to review the governing agenda at any time. But I don't, honestly, I feel a little wary keeping it on the papers and committee because then already having the governing agenda on means basically you can just talk about anything you want at any time, which is a little, I don't know. It's just, so there's a lot in here, right? And technically it's on the agenda. So technically by open meeting law, you know, I mean, it's open meeting was a rabbit hole in and of itself. It doesn't really make sense, but that's my intent by this motion is just to say, okay, we've, we've taken a look at this as it was amended by the full counseling committee of the whole in January. Everything that's on here is, is what should be on here. And then, you know, the vice president and I will put the governing agenda on for us to look back at in June again and see what progress we've made collectively across all the committees. Thank you. And if you wanted, we could motion to add the pro-democracy reforms here under the governing agenda. I just want to make sure everything matches.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And that's really more of us. Just let's make sure. I knew there were some items that weren't here that didn't make it onto agendas yet. So I wanted committees to have a chance to discuss. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Chair, President Bears, thank you. And, you know, I think as we discuss these issues of housing and housing affordability and accessibility in our community, It's important that we have all the tools on the table as possible. I know that there are groups of folks who say supply is the only way out. There's groups of folks who don't want anything new to be built. There's groups of folks who want as few regulations on the landlord-tenant relationship as possible. And certainly there are people who want you know, extreme regulations on the landlord-tenant relationship. And, you know, the answer is actually somewhere in all of those. we're going to continue to work with the city to improve policies. Um. And we have on our agenda. I mean, we have passed, uh, already is only recalibration in 2022 that has brought some significant new projects to the city. We are going to be over this term, passing a complete zoning reform update based on the housing production and comprehensive plan that I think will, um, That's part of the conversation we're having. We're also having a conversation tonight here about having the state give us more tools in our toolbox when it comes to anti displacement regulations. I want to say a few things, just put them out there. And if they have already been said, I apologize, I had to step out for a minute. rent control rent stabilization laws were allowed in this state until 1994 when a ballot question passed by less than 1% of the vote is about 50.5 to 49.5 to overrule them. At that time, there were only three communities that had rent control. maybe actually even just two, Boston and Cambridge, I think Somerville had repealed at the time already. Maybe Somerville had them in 94 too, but either way, the point being that the voters in those cities that had rent control overwhelmingly voted in favor of keeping it. It was voters in Wellesley and Weston and Newton who voted against it. And those are the reasons that rent control ended. So someone from outside of the cities that wanted this have put a ballot question, you know, property owners put a ballot, landlords put a ballot question on the agenda to restrict communities from making decisions at the local level and giving communities the local authority to pass policies that they felt would best address issues of displacement in their community. Overruling the voices of the people in the communities that had rent control at the time who overwhelmingly again voted to keep it. Now, There was a few other things that have come up tonight around what this is going to mean, what this is going to do. I think at the end of the day, when you look at the policy, and I just read through the details of what Vice President Collins submitted earlier today, what this policy does, A, it exempts properties with two or fewer dwelling units on which one of the dwelling units is the owner's principal residence. So if you're a two-family owner and you live in one unit and you're renting the other, this wouldn't apply to you. It exempts to several other examples as well, dormitories, hotels, public housing, etc. It's really targeted at the price gouging. It's targeted at the hundreds and thousands dollar increases from year to year at the multiple, at the two digit percent increases per year. It says that there should be no increase greater than 5% in this language, but it also says that there'll be an exemption for fair return standards. So that if you have, if you can go up above 5%, if you can show that your maintenance and capital costs are going up, that your utility costs are going up, that your property taxes are going up. So it actually addresses all of these concerns that have come out and says if, you know, It's 5% seems reasonable and most years that's significantly above inflation. If you have costs that are going up above that, the city can put that in the regulations that that can be addressed as part of it as well. So to be honest, this is pretty balanced policy when it comes to the eviction protections here. Every reason that was cited by the resident in their email for reasons that they would be afraid, that they would want to evict someone, having a cat against the lease, not paying their rent, otherwise violating their lease policies. All of that is just cause under this policy. This is going and saying, when a corporation buys a building and tells everyone it's time to get out, we're renovating and we're jacking up the rights by double. Is that a just cause? I don't think anyone would dispute that non-payment of rent or violating the lease or causing health effects by having pets in the home against the terms of the lease. Of course, those are things that shouldn't be happening. That's why they're specifically listed as just causes in this document. So it's about putting on paper and saying, and as we are seeing with the MAPC released recently, that over 20% of our housing stock is being bought up by large corporations, Wall Street investors, BlackRock, Vanguard, et cetera, to further financialize and corporatize shelter and housing, that there needs to be balance. And that while we are going to look at supply and increasing supply and allowing what this community has not allowed for a long time, private property owners to do, which is build the things that they want to build on their land, that there also has to be an anti-displacement part of that contract as well. And that there are reasonable regulations that can be adopted such as the ones here to ensure that while we try to get to a better place, while we try to get more affordable housing, more naturally affordable housing, to lower the cost of housing, which I know people don't necessarily, you know, it's funny, everyone says housing costs too much, but nobody wants their housing price to go down, right? So there is a bit of a cash 22 there. But as we move more towards balance, there needs to be something in place in the interim to prevent the displacement of people. Whoever's left at this point, as Kelly Catala noted and many others have noted, many people have already been displaced. If we just say, okay, we're gonna do the zoning and we're gonna wait for supply to come up, thousands more people will be displaced. So that's why policies like these are important. And I appreciate the draft that is before us. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Just before we vote on the motion, Vice President Collins, I just had a question for you on the TOPA, the right to council. Are we gonna look at those at a later date or did we decide we didn't wanna Two home rolls on those?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. I just think we should maybe give the new proposal that you have drafted a new paper number. That would be my amendment to the motion. I just think we need to, uh, I just I think we're splitting it off now. Um, there's now a specific proposal. Pursuant to the right, like it said, be it resolved for me to discuss the potential drafting of formal petitions on a variety. Now we have a specific draft on rent stabilization and just cause eviction. So if we could just amend that when it's recirculated to also give it a new paper number, I think that would be great.
[Zac Bears]: If she doesn't object.
[Zac Bears]: Clerk, will you please call the roll once you're ready? I think it was keep the paper in committee and adjourn. Oh, keep the paper in committee and adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: third regular meeting, Medford City Council, February 6th, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag Thank you, everyone, for being here. So we have a long agenda, as I just noted prior to the start of the meeting. We are going to be doing our best. I cannot make motions, but I believe the vice president will make a motion to take a number of issues that folks are here to talk about tonight so that we can put those at the front of the agenda. Before that, we are going to go through a number of our standing items, remembrances, condolences, celebrations, and the approval of our records and reports of committees. So with that, I will start with announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. 24-027 offered by Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro, and Councilor Tseng. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council acknowledge and celebrate Black History Month. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further comment? On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 24-029 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Condolences to the family of Bruno Bruni Bonacorsi. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I also want to send my condolences to Councilor Caraviello and Carol and their whole family. I know that they are in mourning. Any further comment on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favour? Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. 24-030 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved. excuse me, sorry, be it resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate Patrick O'Brien, lifelong resident of our great city and committed volunteer on his recent retirement at UPS. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further comment? I was a classmate of Katie, and so I knew who was driving the truck when it honked. All right. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favour? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. I'm just going to read this from the chair if there's no objection. 24-032 offered by President Bears can be resolved by the Medford City Council that we send our deep and sincere condolences to the family of Elizabeth Betsy Schwerer, a longtime Medford Public Schools librarian and beloved member of the Medford community. Folks at Medford High School and across our Medford community probably know Betsy. either as a librarian in the schools, or as a parent of three Medford Public Schools graduates, or the wife of someone who's provided great assistance to this council, Gary Klein, and her loss is meaningful to many. And I don't want to belabor and speak from the chair, but I just feel it's important to acknowledge and send our condolences to her family. Any further comments? on my motion, seconded by? Second. Councilor Scarpelli, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. The records of the meeting of January 23rd, 2024 were passed to Councilor Callahan. Councilor Callahan, how did you find those records? Councilor Callahan has found the records in order and moved approval, seconded by? Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion passes. 24-006 committee of the whole report, January 24th, 2024. This was a meeting that we held to discuss the now 30 something page governing agenda. And we referred that out to a number of committees, which did a further deep dive, but I really encourage folks to take a look. We have put out 35 pages of what we plan to do this year and next year. And in my view, it is the most transparent governing plan of any municipality or municipal council in the entire Commonwealth. So I'm very proud of it. on the motion to approve the committee report, seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? The motion passes. 24-006, Administration and Finance Committee report to follow. We discussed the governing agenda in the Administration and Finance Committee, made several motions, and I look forward to updating the governing agenda with the input of the Administration and Finance Committee. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng to join, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. The Planning and Permitting Committee report, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Vice President Collins. The Public Works and Facilities Committee report. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Is there a motion to approve the joint reports? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve, seconded by... Vice President Collins, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: on the motion by Councilor Collins to suspend the rules to take Judy Lonergan's public participation position, 24-037, 24-038, 24-021, and 24-035, seconded by? Second. Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. So we have Judy Lonergan under public participation. You may come to the podium, Judy, and give your name and address for the record, please. And while you're on your way up, I did want to thank you. We haven't seen you since December. I know that you and many others organized the Jingle Bell Festival, a wonderful event for the city. We look forward to working with you and the committee to make sure it is a successful event once again.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Judy. I'm going to recognize Councilor Scarpelli in just a minute. Could you not hear Judy? I got it. Just want to say, you know, I don't think the intent of this council whatsoever is to move or cancel the event. I can't speak for where those rumors have come from, but they have not come from this council or any official statement. Well, they are not accurate. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, and I know how many gifts. Thank you, Councilor Sanford. I know how many gifts go out. I know I was a youth volunteer at the Buddy Cohalent Center myself. My family has faced the tragedy of Alzheimer's, so I understand how important it is. If there's any meetings that I can represent the council at, I'd be happy to do so. From here on out, we're gonna keep it to two minutes. Judy had a petition, so she went in advance, but name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Hi, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Ms. Peduto, you have 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Ma'am, thank you. Your time is up, but your message has been heard.
[Zac Bears]: Your time is up. We have a two-minute limit.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng, and I really do ask that everyone please respect the rules of the council and my role as chair. 24-037 call for election presidential preferential primary Tuesday, March 5th, 2024. Be it ordered that the Elections Commission be and is hereby authorized and directed to notify and warn such of the inhabitants of the city of Medford as were qualified by law to vote for candidates at the presidential preferential primary on Tuesday, March 5th, 2024, to assemble at their polling places in their respective wards and precincts, then and there to give in their votes for presidential preference. District Members of State Committee for each political party for the 2nd Middlesex Senatorial District. Members of the Party Ward Committee for the Democratic Ward Committee and the Republican Ward Committee. And the polls have said Presidential Preferential Primary shall open at 7 a.m. and remain open until 8 p.m. be it further ordered that the following name polling places be and they are hereby designated for use at the presidential preferential primary on march 5th 2024 the said polling places to be open at 7 a.m to 8 p.m voting precincts ward 1 precinct 1 andrews middle school 3000 mystic valley parkway ward 1 precinct 2 firefighters club 340 salem street Ward 2, Precinct 1, Roberts Elementary School, 35 Court Street. Ward 2, Precinct 2, Roberts Elementary School, 35 Court Street. Ward 3, Precinct 1, Medford American Legion, 321 Winthrop Street. Ward 3, Precinct 2, Temple Shalom, 475 Winthrop Street. Ward 4, Precinct 1, Tufts University Gantry Center Rear, 161 College Avenue. Ward 4, Precinct 2, and I want to note this will be at Waukland Court and is not being moved yet. 22 Waughlin Court, Auburn and North Street, Fondacaro Center. Ward 5, Precinct 1 and Ward 5, Precinct 2 at the Missittuck Elementary School, 37 Hicks Avenue. Ward 6, Precinct 1 at the West Medford Fire Station, 26 Harvard Avenue. Ward 6, Precinct 2 at the Brooks School, 388 High Street. Ward 7, Precinct 1, Mystic Valley Towers, North Building Entrance. Ward 7, Precinct 2, McGlynn K-8 Public School, 3004 Mystic Valley Parkway. Ward 8, Precinct 1, Senior Center, 101 Riverside Avenue, and Ward 8, Precinct 2, South Medford Fire Station, 0 Medford Street. Chair Maloran and Member DiBenedetto of the Elections Commission, welcome. If there's anything you'd like to say.
[Zac Bears]: Wonderful, thank you, Mr. Chair. Member DiBenedetto, anything?
[Zac Bears]: Fantastic. On the call to election, any comments from members of the council? Councilor Saini.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On this one, since it's a call for election, I'm going to ask the clerk to call the roll. So on the motion to issue the call for election, to order the election by the, is there a motion to approve by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: 24-038, which is the election calendar. I'm just going to quickly read it if I get anything wrong. I'm not gonna read the whole thing. You can find it on the city website, but there are three elections this year. There's the presidential primary, March 5th, and there are seven days of early voting before that on the 24th, 25th, 26th, 26th, 27th, 28th. Leap year, 29th, and 1st of March. And then the election is March 5th. There's a state primary on September 3rd. There's seven days of early voting for that. And then there is the general election on November 5th, 2024. And there's at least two weeks, 14 days of early voting for that. So that's the election calendar. And that can be found at the elections commission at medford-ma.gov. On the motion to receive and place on file, Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. 24-021. Resolution to support adult access and education for plant medicine. Offered by Councilor Leming and Councilor Callahan. Whereas the so-called war on drugs has led to unnecessary penalization, arrest, and incarceration of vulnerable people, particularly people of color and people of limited financial means, rather than prioritizing harm reduction policies to treat drug abuse as an issue of public health. And whereas ethniogenic plants and fungi such as psilocybin mushrooms, ayahuasca, ibogaine, and mescaline-containing cacti have been shown by peer-reviewed studies and indigenous practice to be beneficial, for treating spiritual trauma, addiction, PTSD, depression, terminal illness, anxiety, and cluster headaches, among other conditions. And whereas, on average, we lose one of our neighbors in the Commonwealth to opioid overdose every week, as thousands of people we love struggle with addictions that ethniogenic plant medicine has been shown to alleviate, And whereas seven Massachusetts communities, Somerville, Cambridge, Northampton, Easthampton, Amherst, Salem, and Provincetown, and nearly two dozen cities nationwide have passed measures directing an end to arrests for growing and sharing these plant medicines, embracing their inferred constitutional right to regulate public safety. That is outlined in the U.S. Department of Justice's Cole Memorandum that permitted localities to deprioritize enforcement of cannabis. Oh boy, be it resolved that the Medford City Council hereby maintains the use and possession of all controlled substances should be understood first and primarily as an issue of public health and by all town entities and that no Medford employees should use any should emanate to city resources, city entities and city resources to assist in enforcement of laws criminalizing personal controlled substance possession. Is there a motion to waive the remainder of the reading? Motion. Thank you, Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Aye. Councilor Leming?
[Zac Bears]: I said a motion to refer to the public health and community safety.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Okay. With the representative from the police department. Seconded by councilor Lazzaro. Is there further discussion? Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Was your microphone on? It's on. The light's on. All right. Yeah. Thank you. Shane. Thank you, Shane. Shane said yes. You couldn't hear him either, but I did. Any further comment from members of the council? Sorry, Mr. Cassidy, one moment. Seeing none, we will take public participation. Two minutes each on the issue. If you'd like to speak on this issue, you may line up at the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. We will alternate between the podium and Zoom. Two minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: And I apologize that we, I've been working on an RFP to fix the sound system in this room for several months, and I'm very frustrated that it hasn't been done yet. We do have hearing assistance devices available, and I believe the City Messenger and our videographer can provide those to assist if the sound quality in the room is not sufficient for people who are in attendance. No hands on Zoom, so we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: You have 30 seconds, Mr. Davis.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the public or members on Zoom? Seeing no hands on Zoom, I'll go to any member in the room who would like to speak at the podium. Mr. Castagnetti, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. Any further comments from members of the public? I see Grace Parker on Zoom, and then I'll come back to the podium. Grace, name and address for the record, please. You have two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Grace, and a model of a quick comment. Thank you. podium. Name and address of the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: I will go to Councilor Leming and then Councilor Kelly.
[Zac Bears]: The motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro to send this to committee public health and community safety committee. All those in favor. I think that's for I'm gonna ask for a roll call. I just, it's right down the middle. Ms. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: No, if I'm in the affirmative, two in the negative, the motion passes and the item is referred to the Public Health and Community Safety Committee. 24-035. Yes, Councilor Strunk?
[Zac Bears]: We'll get that amended for the records. And for the public, if you would like to prank this council, email councilor. 24-035 offered by Vice President Collins. Resolution in support. Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to amend the resolution to the copy before the council and the clerk, after which I will read it and it will be presented. So on the motion to use the amended language for the purposes of discussion of the paper by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. 24-035 offered by Vice President Collins, whereas the Medford City Council recognizes and affirms the sanctity, preciousness, and equality of all human life, and whereas on October 7, 2023, the terrorist group Hamas killed over 1,200 Israeli residents, took over 240 hostages, committed a terrific atrocities, displaced families, wreaked untold grief and trauma upon the civilian population of Israel, and have continued to attack Israeli civilians, injuring hundreds in rocket attacks since October 7th, and whereas since those horrific attacks, the ongoing Israeli military campaign and blockade has created a humanitarian crisis of catastrophic proportions in Gaza, and whereas since October 7th, The Israeli military has killed over 26,000 Palestinians in Gaza, injured over 62,000, and more than 85% of all Gaza residents have been displaced. And whereas the ongoing military campaign has had a horrific toll on civilians in Gaza, with UNICEF describing the Gaza Strip as the, quote, world's most dangerous place to be a child, and reporting that 40% of all deaths in Gaza have been deaths of children, and whereas the Israeli military has launched more than 22,000 airstrikes at Gaza, resulting in the destruction of over 70% of all homes and schools, and most of its civilian infrastructure, including electricity, communications, water, sewer, and sanitation systems, with the World Health Organization reporting that all Gazan hospitals have been destroyed or seriously damaged, exacerbated the humanitarian crisis, and whereas the near total siege on Gaza has prevented the delivery of life-saving humanitarian aid, and whereas the World Food Program has reported that all 2.2 million people in Gaza are facing crisis levels of food insecurity, that one in four Gazans is facing catastrophic hunger, and that without an end to bombardment and resumption of humanitarian aid, famine will spread quickly across the population and whereas humanitarian organizations report that the Israeli military kills an average of 250 Palestinians each day, almost all civilians, and that these deaths are a direct result of airstrikes, the blockade of basic food and medical aid, and the destruction of hospitals and basic shelter, which are war crimes, and whereas Hamas continues to hold over 100 Israeli civilians hostage and target Israeli civilians, which are war crimes, and whereas Israel continues to detain thousands of Palestinians who have never been charged with or convicted of a crime, including scores of children. And whereas on October 26, 2023, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for an immediate, durable, and sustained humanitarian truce between Israeli forces and Hamas militants in Gaza, and numerous international humanitarian organizations have similarly called for a sustained ceasefire. And whereas the previous ceasefire from November 24 to November 30, 2023, allowed for the release of some Israeli hostages, some Palestinian detainees, and allowed emergency aid and fuel to enter Gaza and whereas the history of Israel and Palestine since 1948 includes systemic displacement of Palestinians and occupation of Palestine, the imposition of illegal blockades upon and denial of basic civil and human rights to Palestinian civilians. ongoing and escalating terrorism and violent attacks by Israeli soldiers and settlers against Palestinian civilians in the occupied West Bank, and extremist violence aimed at Israeli civilians, and whereas many members of the Medford community are suffering from trauma, grief, shock, and fear compounded by recent increased incidence of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and anti-Palestinian racism, both nationally and locally. And whereas members of the Medford community, including Palestinians and Jews, are speaking out for peace in Israel and Palestine, and in support of a permanent bilateral ceasefire and a return of all hostages, innocent detainees, and political prisoners, now, therefore, Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we support an enduring bilateral ceasefire in Israel and Gaza and the immediate return of all hostages, innocent detainees, and political prisoners. Be it further resolved by the Medford City Council that we unequivocally condemn all violence against civilians, including the attacks by Hamas on October 7, 2023 against Israeli civilians, the Israeli military campaign against Gaza that continues to unleash disproportionate violence against Palestinian civilians, attacks by Israeli settlers against Palestinian civilians in the occupied West Bank, and all attacks by all parties against civilians. Be it further resolved by the Medford City Council that we support the lifting of the blockade and the uninhibited provision of life-saving humanitarian aid to Gaza. Be it further resolved by the Medford City Council that we We affirm the inalienable right of all people to live in peace, free from fear of harm and prejudice, be it further resolved by the Medford City Council that we unequivocally condemn all xenophobic violence, attacks, and rhetoric, and affirm the inalienable right of all people to know safety and acceptance, regardless of their religion, race, ethnicity, nationality, or skin color. be it further resolved by the Medford City Council that we urge the Biden administration, the United States Senate, and the United States Congress to exert the full extent of their power, influence, and funding to bring about an enduring ceasefire, the uninhibited provision of humanitarian aid, and the release of all hostages and detained innocents, Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be sent to each member of Medford's federal delegation, that's Senator Warren, Senator Markey, and Representative Clark, and to President Biden, urging them to use their power and influence to bring about a sustained and enduring ceasefire so as to protect and honor all human life. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Callaghan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callaghan. Any further discussion by members of the council? Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: I have, if you wouldn't mind, I just have some as well. Could we let councilor speak and then can we come back to the reading into the record piece? Is that okay? It's uncharacteristic, Councilor Bears, that usually we... I'd just like to treat all public participation the same, if that's all right.
[Zac Bears]: Are you reading other people's statements in the record?
[Zac Bears]: I have some from others. If I could just go to... Let every councilor say their piece, then I'll go right back to you after councilors have spoken to read other statements into the record. You'll be first in line. Councilor say.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further comments by members of the Council? Seeing none, as the president and the chair, I will not be, I will be voting, but I will not be participating in debate as I move us through this resolution. And I hope everyone can appreciate that that is my role. Now we will go to hear from, if anyone would like to read anything into the record, I know we have Councilor Scarpelli has a number of items. I have an item. Are there any other councilors would like to read any statements into the record that they received? Councilor Scarpelli, and I appreciate your deference to me.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I'm going to read a statement that we received a call here at City Hall from a resident who has to make a statement in support of 24035 resolution in support of a ceasefire in Israel and Gaza. The caller is a Medford resident of over 15 years, married to an Arab American and mother of two children are also of Arab heritage. She supports the resolution filed by Vice President Collins for a ceasefire in Israel and Gaza. She has friends directly impacted who have lost dozens and dozens of family members a ceasefire is what's best for all people and would prevent wider escalation of wars and suffering in the region. The caller asked to remain anonymous for the safety of her family. So we've heard a number of opinions tonight. We are going to hear opinions that we disagree with tonight. Votes are going to be taken that we may disagree with tonight. I deeply ask everyone to respect the rules of the council, my role as chair, and we're gonna try to hear from everyone. We're gonna go, there's no end point. I've been here till 2.30 in the morning before. Maybe we'll be here tonight if everyone in this room wants to speak for two minutes. But when we speak, we're going to listen for two minutes. I'm going to give a 30 second warning. And I really please ask folks not to interrupt or try to disrupt the speech of anyone. Again, we are going to hear things that we disagree with tonight. I stand here very often and hear things I disagree with. And I do try my very, very best not to react. And I ask just that we hold that level of respect for everyone as they speak tonight. We'll hear from everyone. A vote on some motion will be taken on this resolution, and that will be how this process goes. So as I said, we can have folks line up here at the podium if they would like to speak. We will alternate also with Zoom. If people are on Zoom, please raise your hand on Zoom, and we will go back and forth between the podium and Zoom as hands are raised. Everyone will have two minutes. I will begin a timer after I ask folks to introduce themselves. If you would like to just provide the city that you live in versus your street address, you may do so. But I will ask for name and city of residence and address if you are comfortable sharing your address. It looks like we're gonna have a lot of comments. So again, as I did before, and as you all saw the role of this chair, I'm going to ask you to stop at two minutes and I really please ask that you respect that. We cool with that? All right, thank you very much. And we're gonna start at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. We'll make sure we can hear you. And you will have two minutes once you've said your name.
[Zac Bears]: We have some hands raised on Zoom. I'm going to go to Steve Schnapp. Steve, I'm going to unmute you, ask you for your name, and you can provide your address or your city, and then I will give you a 30-second warning and a 10-second warning.
[Zac Bears]: We're going to go to the podium. Name and address for the record, and then I'll give you two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, you have two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You have 10 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Kate Wall on Zoom. You will have two minutes. Please provide your name and city or address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Back to the podium, your name and address or city for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: You have 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: 10 seconds of my life.
[Zac Bears]: We're going to go to Lara Germanis on Zoom. I will unmute you. Please provide your name and address for the record. And then I will give you a 30 second warning and a 10 second warning.
[Zac Bears]: We're going to go to the podium. We're going to go to the podium. Eileen Lerner, name and address record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Next, we're going to go to Zoom. I have Devorah Klein. I'm going to ask you to unmute. You can provide your name and address or city, and then you'll have two minutes. I will give a 30-second warning and a 10-second warning.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to the podium, name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: All right, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Kate on Zoom. Kate, please provide your name and address for the record. I will give a 30-second warning and a 10-second warning.
[Zac Bears]: to go to the podium, name and address for the record, and I'll give a 30-second warning and a 10-second warning. Jennifer, I'm sorry, could you press the button on the microphone? You may have tapped it off.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, no. Well, we heard you. We'll get it for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Grace Parker on Zoom. Grace, I'll unmute you, ask for your name and address, and I'll give you a 30-second warning and a 10-second warning on a two-minute time limit. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Grace. Go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And I'll give you a 30-second warning and 10-second warning.
[Zac Bears]: We have Marianne Vidal on zoom. Marianne, I'm going to unmute you. Please provide your name and address or the city you live in. And I will give you a 30 second warning and a 10 second warning. You have two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to the podium, name and address for the record, and you will have two minutes. I'll give a 30-second warning and a 10-second warning.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Zoom. Yes. Oh, yeah. Sorry, Susan, we can't have a flag. There's a message on there. We don't have flags or signs in the chamber. Pardon? There's a message on your, yes. If you could hand it to Eileen for a minute. But I am going to go to Zoom first. We have Amina Awad on Zoom. I mean, I'm going to unmute you. You can say your name, address and city or city, and give you a 30 second warning and a 10 second warning on a two minute timer for is yours.
[Zac Bears]: Please go to the podium. And thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing no more hands on Zoom, we're gonna stick with the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have two minutes. I'll give you a 30-second warning and a 10-second warning.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, name and address for the record. You have two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You have 10 seconds, Claire. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no hands on Zoom, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. Two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: name and address for the record, and I'll remember the 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Travis. Name and address the record. I'll give a 30 second warning and a 10 second warning.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, in one second, I just want to say, if you are on Zoom and you would like to speak, please raise your hand. But I see no hands. Go to the podium. Name and address for the record. Two minutes, and I'll give a 30-second and a 10-second warning.
[Zac Bears]: You have 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: name and address for the record, please, you have two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please, or the city.
[Zac Bears]: Hello. Name and address for the record, please. You have two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Your name and your city or your street address for the record, you have two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing no hands on Zoom, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I would just ask you to direct your comments to the chair.
[Zac Bears]: That's what I'm here for. Go to the podium, name and address for the record. You have two minutes, and I will dispose this as my campaign treasure.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We do have someone on Zoom. I'm going to go to them, and then I'll come right back to you. On Zoom, I have Sharon Diesso. I will unmute you, Sharon. You'll have two minutes, and I will give you a 30-second warning and a 10-second warning. Sharon? Sharon, I'm going to come back to you. We'll go to the podium. Sharon can, okay, sorry. This hybrid gets a little rough. Sharon, I just unmuted you. Do you need to accept it? Thanks to everyone for bearing with me. Sharon, I'm going to have to come back to you. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record. You have two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I see that you're unmuted and I will give you a 30 second warning and a 10 second warning. You have two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Welcome to the podium. Name and address for the record. You have two minutes. I'll give a 30 second warning and a 10 second warning.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, you have 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Sarah. You have two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Linnea. I'm going to go to Zoom. Pao Mendez, I'll unmute you. You'll have two minutes, and I will give you a 30-second and a 10-second warning.
[Zac Bears]: And I also wanna thank you for answering me in the chat and respecting our cybersecurity. Name and address for the record, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. If there's anyone out, I'm just going to say to anyone left on Zoom, if you would like to speak, please raise your hand, and I will go to the podium. Name and address for the record, and you have two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You may continue.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, I would really ask that we not engage in direct debate with each other here.
[Zac Bears]: 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Are you speaking, Mr. Castanedi? I will allow you as I have allowed us all. Anyone else is welcome as well.
[Zac Bears]: Hey, you'll have two minutes, Mr. Castanedi, and I will give you a 30-second warning and a 10-second warning.
[Zac Bears]: It's your time, you have 40 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: You have 10 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Cassinetti. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this resolution, paper 24-035? We have a hand raised on Zoom. I will go to Matthew Page Lieberman. You will have two minutes, and I will give a 30-second warning and a 10-second warning. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: You have 10 seconds, Matt.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I did. I'm now going back on what I said. I said people could only speak once earlier procedural question. I'm not going to procedural question. Absolutely.
[Zac Bears]: I will leave that to Councilors to make procedural motions as I can't. I do want to say before I turn back to Councilors that I want to thank everyone. This is a This can be, I've run some tough meetings, and this actually wasn't one of them. And I really appreciate everyone, regardless of what they believed and what they felt, for just respecting everyone's time and their chance to tell their stories, because there's some incredibly powerful stories told tonight. I have told folks, I'm supportive of this resolution as amended. That's all I'm gonna say from the chair, because I really probably shouldn't have even have said that, but I really wanna thank all of you for your time, for your words, and for just, you're creating a respectful space for the people who ask to be heard to be heard. 95-99%. Thank you. I'm gonna go to Councilor Collins, and then Councilor Tseng, and then Councilor Callahan. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Khan seconded by second seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. I will go to Councilor Tseng and then Councilor Kelly and Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion? There's a motion on the floor. Any further motions or discussion? On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve as amended, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. I could call a voice vote or a roll call, is there a preference? A roll call has been requested. There'll be a roll call vote. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, on a vote of five.
[Zac Bears]: I don't have to ask you to vote for it. I'm calling us back into session. On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro, revert to the regular order of business, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24-022. beaten by my own agenda format, be it resolved that the Medford City Council hold biannual trainings refreshers with Medford Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Frances Nwaje, or her designee, so that our body may keep these values top of mind in all our work and interactions with the public, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: We would have to do a training committee of the whole, if we wanted all Councilors to be part of it. Or we could do trainings in smaller groups.
[Zac Bears]: Could we do... There may be exemptions to the open meeting law, we'll have to look into it.
[Zac Bears]: City clerk. Ooh, he's a councilor now.
[Zac Bears]: on the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to refer to the Resident Services and Public Engagement Subcommittee. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Great. On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng, as amended by Councilor Tseng. Councilor Kalan. Oh, you were seconding, sorry. All those in favor. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Referred to Resident Services and Public Engagement. 24-02. Well, yes. Sorry, Patrick. The chair is tired. Patrick, we'll take your comment.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment, and Mr. Clerk, please record that as comment on the record for item 24-022, and my apologies for not calling it. Mr. Castagnetti, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. 24-023, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the City of Medford explore the options, costs, and requirements to open a warming and cooling center for adults experiencing homelessness in December 2024. Be it further resolved that the Medford City Council invite representatives from the administration, including the Board of Health, along with stakeholders in our community and in neighboring communities to attend meetings on this topic. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to refer to public health and community safety, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any discussion? Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Any discussion by members of the public, either in the chamber or on Zoom? Seeing none, on the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to refer to public health and community safety, seconded by Councilor, Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Madam Vice President.
[Zac Bears]: on the motion to take paper 24028 under suspension. Suspend the rules to take paper 24-028. Seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. I'm giving the chair to the vice-chair.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate, uh. All of the folks who I've spoken to about putting this resolution forward in the City Council on the City Council agenda. There is a large and vibrant movement to end the embargo and to remove Cuba from the state sponsors of terrorism list and. There's several, many, many reasons why that's true. One of those reasons is that we already had done some de-escalatory work that was reversed by the Trump administration. It wasn't enough. But to reimpose Cold War, Red Scare rules and thoughts on the millions of people impacted by the embargo and the other restrictions that the United States places on Cuba for imperialist reasons is just unacceptable. So with that, I have put this forward. I want to add our voice to the chorus. I do have two statements I want to make. I do want to thank folks who reached out and noted that a blockade is different than an embargo. And I'll make sure that the short title matches the long resolution next time. And I'd also like to amend this to include that we submit this resolution to the president as well.
[Zac Bears]: Madam Chair, just if I may also add, I just wanted to add in that it's really important to get this on the desk of Representative Clark. As you noted, Senators Warren and Markey have supported a number of these proposals, as well as Reps. McGovern, Pressley-Lynch, Moulton-Linterhan. Representative Clark has not. So that is something where this is directly providing some advocacy on our federal delegate. Representative Clark, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: It's embarrassing. Thank you. And apologies to my colleagues that I'm sitting here and talking. Usually I'm up there quiet, and I'm sure that some of my colleagues appreciate that. at least based on past experience, regardless of any affiliation, by the way. I'm sure that's true. I just want to say a couple things. One, there's been a lot of commentary lately. The council's so focused on this, they're not going to be able to focus on the other thing. We put out a 40-page governing agenda. with dozens of issues. I appreciate the concern that we're going to focus too much on one thing and not be able to do the other. I just don't believe it to be true. The other thing I want to say just on the specifics, the Obama administration, the defense apparatus, whatever we want to say, they removed Cuba from the state's positive terrorism list. The date that the Trump administration put them back on was January 12, 2021. It was six days after Trump literally tried to be a dictator. And he did it on the way out, out of spite, to try to undermine the legacy of his predecessor. So, you know, I'm making kind of a liberal establishment you know, defense intelligence agency argument for this, but the fact that there is one kind of underlies why this is something that should just be passed. So I appreciate the support of my colleagues. I hope you vote for it. I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Council Vice President concert to the regular order of business seconded by Councilor carry and all those in favor of those motion passes 24-025 commercial vacancy tax whereas the city of Medford has many commercial storefronts that are either vacant or for unacceptably long periods of time, or are rarely and inconsistently open for business. And whereas there exists insufficient incentive for the owners of such property to maintain and rent their storefronts to active businesses. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Medford City Council discuss the adoption of a commercial vacancy tax, which can be applied to disincentivize these storefront properties from remaining undocupied indefinitely. Be it further resolved that this matter be referred to committee for further discussion with the Chief Assessor, the Finance Director, and the Economic Development Director, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Let me to refer to the administration of the Finance Committee seconded by Councilor Callahan. Is there discussion or yes, Councilor Lemme.
[Zac Bears]: on the motion of Councilor LAMING to proudly insult the business community.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Vice President Collins, Councilor Callahan, then Councilor Lueb.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Leming. Any further comment. Councilor Callahan, are there members of the public who'd like to speak? I see a hand on Zoom and a hand at the podium. I will go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Sir, I don't think the detail has been worked out yet. So that's why it's being referred to committee for further discussion. I'm actually not sure what the legal mechanisms we have at hand under Massachusetts general law are to implement such a tax, but I think there's an intent behind it, so.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, the intent.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I mean, Councilor Leming has kind of stated his intent here, I think relatively clearly. If you want to clarify, you're welcome to.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Zoom. Matthew Page Lieberman, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Matthew. Mr. Castagnetti, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: I don't have the energy to fight him.
[Zac Bears]: As we speak, I hope not.
[Zac Bears]: But because it's pretty late. No, my understanding of the commercial real estate, and again, I don't. is that it's mainly focused the value issue is in the downtown areas of major cities like Boston. I have not seen, although there is the vacancy at 400 Riverside which is well noted a very large building and office with a warehouse attached but I have not, to my knowledge the assessor has not informed us of any serious devaluation of the commercial properties in the residential is going up.
[Zac Bears]: We just finished the tax, not just, but in December, we finished the tax rate and the commercial valuation had increased significantly as well.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Mr. Cassidy, if there's anything.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. Any further comment? Hearing none, on the motion of Councilor Leming to refer to administration and finance, seconded by Councilor Callahan earlier, maybe it was Councilor, somebody. Councilor Callahan, we have Councilor Callahan, I remembered it. The clerk says I was right. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 24-026, Transportation Demand Ordinance. Whereas the city of Medford should address high levels of traffic, whereas developers often need to make exceptions to zoning regulations to feasibly develop new buildings, and the current process of passing those to the Zoning Board of Appeals often adds unwanted uncertainty and delays to these processes, whereas a transportation demand management program automates these exceptions and puts them to the staff level by means of a points-based impacts and credits system, and whereas Everett and Boston have implemented a transportation demand management program to great success during development of both commercial and affordable residential property, and whereas a transportation demand management program can provide design and programming strategies that developers can employ to reduce car traffic to and from their buildings, therefore be it resolved that the Medford City Council adopt a transportation demand ordinance. Be it further resolved that this matter be referred to committee for further discussion with the Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability. Be it further resolved that the members of the Committee on Planning and Permitting submit questions to the Chair, Clerk, and City staff ahead of the committee meeting scheduled for this subject. Be it further resolved that the Medford City Council work with the Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability to evaluate the suitability of a transportation demand management program, determine the capacity of the city to implement such a program, and provide specific recommendations for its structure and policies, particularly with respect to the nature of the Medford specific impacts and design of its credit system. And I will go to you in one moment, Councilor Leming, but I do want to note that this also came up during our planning and permitting committee meeting discussion on the governing agenda, and we had discussed incorporating this with our larger discussion on the zoning reform. Since some folks and I can't remember what was had talked to planning development sustainability staff, and they felt it would be a good compliment to the zoning to put it in and have our can those consultants work on this as well as part of the comprehensive zoning reform so I just want to let you know that, since we're able to be at the meeting, and the reports just came out recently so. But with that I will turn it over to you Council.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of council, I'm going to refer to planning and permitting, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Is there further discussion? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Referred to planning and permitting. 24-031 offered by Councilor Starpelli. be it resolved that the Medford City Council ask for representative for BJ's Wholesale Club to meet with the council on construction updates and review neighborhood concerns. Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you, Council President.
[Zac Bears]: Last Wednesday, okay.
[Zac Bears]: And then they said on Thursday it'll be a couple weeks we're coming back and doing this again.
[Zac Bears]: So the further motion from Councilor Scarpelli to immediately refer this, contact the building department to contact the representative from BJ's and also to request a meeting with us, but also to request immediate notification of the surrounding neighborhood.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Mr. Court, do you have that?
[Zac Bears]: Most of it. Great. And we'd like that to go out as soon as possible given the timeline. So maybe before the records. Great. And then I will go to Councilor Callahan, Councilor Tseng. Was there anyone over there? All right, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely, thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, as further amended by Councilor Scarpelli, to refer immediately to the building department for a response, as well as to refer to BJ's for us to have a meeting. Is that to committee of the whole? Councilor Scarpelli. Regular meeting, okay. So we'll send it, there's a motion to send it to building department for immediate response. And then also we will put it on the table. We'll table it, so we'll take two votes. And if we have it on the table, then we can take it back up in regular session. So on the first motion to refer the question to the building department for an immediate response and to notify abutters of further construction, that was Councilor Scarapelli, seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor? All right. Opposed? Motion passes. On the motion to table the paper, so it's on the agenda so we can take it back up at a regular meeting. by motion by Councilor Tseng seconded by Councilor Collins all those in favor. I oppose motion passes 2324-033 offered by President Bears and Vice President Collins be resolved by the Medford City Council at the planning and permitting committee invite staff from the office of planning and sustainability and associates the Medford City Council zoning consultant to discuss our upcoming comprehensive review and update of the zoning ordinance. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: The motion by Councilor Collins seconded by Councilor Scarpelli to refer the paper to the planning and permitting committee. All those and that's right right. All those in favor. Opposed motion passes. 24-034. This is also offered by me. I'm actually might ask Councilor Callahan to speak very quickly on it. This is just a motion that I put on because we discussed it and public works committee. This was around the facilities management, which I agreed to lead. So I'll just read it real quickly. And then if you, you know, you may be able to provide the context as the committee chair. 24-034 be resolved by the Bedford City Council that the Public Works and Facilities Committee request a report from the Facilities Manager containing the following information. One, complete inventory of city-owned properties and city-managed properties. Two, cost to restore each property on the above inventory to a state of good repair. Three, cost to maintain each property in a state of good repair once restored. Be it further resolved that the Public Works and Facilities Committee invite the Facilities Manager to present and discuss the above report once completed. Chair Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: The motion to refer the public works and facilities committee by Councilor Cohen second by Councilor Tseng any further discussion. Members of the public yes Mr. Gasconetti.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. Mr. Merritt.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, yeah, and I'll go to Councilor Callahan in just a second. I think we'd certainly be open to the assessment that it's not worth the existing city capacity to restore it to a state of good repair. So I hear you there, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Personally, I don't think we should sell public land, but maybe a land swap of some kind could be good, but that's neither here nor there until it is. Any further discussion? On the motion.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Public Works and Facilities, yes. 24036, Vice President Collins, who has asked to say something. Vice President Collins, yes.
[Zac Bears]: what I plan to support. I just have to take these in order before you continue to explain the motion. On the motion of Councilor Collins to table 24-036 until the next regular meeting, and you'd like it to appear on the regular agenda. So it'll be back on under motions, orders and resolutions at our next regular meeting. On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Gallihan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Councilor Keohane, you're invoking rule 28 to reconsider paper 24-021? Yes, I am. All right, give me one second. I just wanna double check. I'm sure you're reading exactly what I'm about to read, and it's gonna say exactly the same thing, but I'm gonna look anyway. After vote is taken. Whereas Councilor Collins was on the prevailing side of the vote, which was to refer paper 24-021 regarding plant medicine to the Public Health and Community Safety Committee. The motion to reconsider. Yeah, you can just do that. So that's back on the table. We're talking about it again. 24-021. I'm just gonna read it, I'm not gonna read it, sorry. Do we have to vote to reconsider? Hold on a second. No, I don't have to vote on the motion to reconsider. It's an automatic invocation, it's a motion. So it is under reconsideration, at least that's how I read it, unless someone wants to overrule the chair. 24-021, resolution to support adult access and education for plant medicine. Councilor Collins, if you would like to explain your motion to reconsider.
[Zac Bears]: Is there a motion on the floor? Motion to move the question. Motion to move the... To pass it. Motion for approval by Councilor Leming, seconded by? Second. Seconded by Councilor Collins. This is a motion to approve 24-021. you can make a motion to amend. I'm gonna take the motions in order. Yes, what's the motion?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, Councilor Leming, are you comfortable with amending your motion to approve to also include that the police chief will report back to the council on the recommendation of the resolution?
[Zac Bears]: His response to the resolution.
[Zac Bears]: All right, so seeing that everyone's cool with that, or at least the two motioners, the two petitioners seem to be acceptable on the motion to approve the paper 24-021, a resolution supporting adult access and education for plant medicine as amended by Councilor Tseng to request a response from the chief of police to the resolution. Is there anything beyond that? Okay. Is there a discussion on the motion? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. Any further discussion? Seeing none, the motion of Councilor Leming to approve as amended by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed?
[Zac Bears]: Motion passes. Do you want to be noted as opposed? Yes. All right. Motion passes, noting Councilor Scarpelli in opposition. Any further discussion on, oh, well, public participation. Is there, well, we just did Judy, technically. Is there anyone who would like to say anything else? Speak now or forever hold your peace until February 20th. Larry would like to go home on the motion of Councilor Callahan to adjourn seconded by Councilor Collins all those in favor. All those opposed motion passes meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Callahan. Yeah, I think this is so important. I think it's an issue. If you're asking me if there was a top three issue, this is one of the one of the three. Everybody, regardless of whatever else they may believe, is frustrated with the condition of our streets and sidewalks. And I think that's really the ultimate question. You know, we've been trying to, I think, and trying to get it from multiple angles, I think it's really valuable. We've been trying to get at it from the budget side. What's our what's our investment going to be in streets and sidewalks, we have this payment management plan. It says we need to start spending x by x to maintain the mediocre condition of our streets and sidewalks, nevermind to. actually start making improvements in the condition or the rating, they have this numerical rating of condition. So I would move based on your statement, Madam Chair, to request that we receive, and let me see if I can get this exactly right, and I don't have this in advance, so I'm sorry, Mr. Clerk, to create a new paper in committee and the Public Works and Facilities Committee to request an update on the payment management plan from the Department of Public Works, including the plan, the financial plan recommendation that the city adopted based on the payment management plan, what that financial investment has looked like in the fiscal year since that plan was published and when the plan will be updated. And hopefully we can get answers to those questions and also have Commissioner McGivern or whomever from maybe multiple folks from DPW to present some answers to those questions and also allow us to have a discussion.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think, you know, I'm happy to, at the discretion of the chair, to forward that motion to the commissioner, and if he says I need this much time to get answers to your questions, then we can put it on an agenda for next month or two months, whatever they need. But the timeline, the discretion of the chair is fine with me, and based on availability and capacity of the city staff.
[Zac Bears]: It's a motion, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Second. Councilor Scarpella?
[Zac Bears]: what the city has spent relative to payment management since the plan was published.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and like by fiscal year. Yeah, and you don't, you could also, we could discuss my motion more if people have further discussion.
[Zac Bears]: versus uh the way that we're currently doing it that's a good idea add the sidewalks to that and then i'll i'll make the second motion okay yeah and my apologies for the i intended it to be pavement management and sidewalk management um i like that i think um and we could add that further amendment the sidewalk management we could also add when we talk about the spending over the since those plans were released, including the bond orders as part of that, like how much work was done on each bond order, how much remains to be bonded. I think that's really it. Right. Right.
[Zac Bears]: So maybe it would be the bond, what was done under each bond, how much remains to be bonded, and whether or not the availability of licensed contractors affected what projects were conducted. That's good.
[Zac Bears]: And then I also was wondering if, when you make your next motion on the as chair Kelly and said on the sidewalk payment hot top crew. whether potentially they could also serve. Another PPW priority that we had was the main streets and sidewalk, the major sidewalks, snow removal pilot that we had. I don't remember. There's a big map in that desk from Commissioner Karen's of these are the main routes in the city, and could the city take responsibility for sending out a Luke sidewalker, for example? And that is the name of one of our sidewalkers, by the way. Look it up, Google it. Back when we had a newspaper that was newsworthy, somehow. But could this crew potentially also, in addition to being available to the other departments, would that maybe be also an alternative?
[Zac Bears]: Exactly. Part of their equipment, part of their duties could just be a sidewalk maintenance. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I do think for timing's sake, we should split them. One is like, what is the information of the stuff we've already done? And one is like, can you come up with an estimate and an idea of a new thing? And that might, as Councilor Scarpelli and Lazzaro noted, take more time. And maybe it's waiting on the deputy commissioner to be hired. There's a bunch of factors there.
[Zac Bears]: I think the intent is to say what would the equipment and the personnel cost be for in-house maintenance sidewalks on top and snow removal on priority sidewalks? Is anybody else watching this? There's a second gavel. Give me the second gavel. Please, second gavel. It's in the second drawer. It's smaller.
[Zac Bears]: I said nothing of the sort. You said that.
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, and I'm happy to volunteer as the lead on this. This has again been something we're trying to get our hands around in the budget side of things. What are all of the facilities we own? And what is the cost for us to bring them all up to a state of good repair? And then what is the annual cost to maintain them in a state of good repair? Big questions, but also essential questions. I saw we had an email from Mr. Krause about Chevalier and about Condon Shell. So maybe he wants to talk about that as part of this as a member of the council's representative on the Medford Brooks Estate Land Trust Board. That's another property that is city owned that has needed significant support to get to a state of good repair to get into a functioning business model. You know, Chevalier has come a long way, obviously, in the last 30 years to where it is now really. an economic heart of our downtown, but it still needs serious maintenance. It's an old building, it needs new things, it needs maintenance. Those are just two properties. We have the Hegner Center, which is abandoned functionally. We have all of our fire stations. We have the new police station, the new library. Maintenance was an issue for the new library in the last budget. I know it's difficult. We now have a facilities manager. It's a 1 person show. Um, a lot of I'm sure his time is spent actively managing minor repair projects on, you know, and maintenance projects across the city's facilities inventory. Um, but. Figuring that that main question out of, uh. What is everything that we own? What would it cost to bring them all up to a state of good repair? And then what is the cost to maintain those buildings at a state of good repair? We're in another building right now where we have punched out panels in 80 to 100-year-old windows. I mean, it's pervasive across all of the city-owned facilities except for basically the library, the police station, and I don't even know anymore about the DPW yard. We're coming up on 15 years, 10 years of that being a new facility. One, if we're going to be building new, we're going to be building a new fire headquarters. If we've just built these new buildings, we need to be investing in maintenance. And if we're going to have, you know, Brooks estate has no devoted line item right now from the city, the Chevalier, I believe Mr. Krause said that the custodian line item that got paid not out of the general fund last year that came from money that should have been going from the casino fund to Chevalier. So. you know, when we talk about not having the resources we need, whether it's on the operational side to have a hot top crew and the equipment that we need, or we're talking on the capital side to have, you know, on the operating side for maintenance, for capital expenditures, and then the capital side of like deep investments in renovations or reconstruction, we need to be able to answer those questions to give the scope to the community of, of where we're going to go. So it's not a motion, but that's just, I'm happy to take this one on. I think it's a major project. I think we should do something similar maybe at our next meeting to not necessarily have him at our next meeting, but the motion we just made around streets and sidewalks where we have a little more progress. Perhaps in our next meeting, we can have a discussion about and maybe I'll put something on the agenda to refer to this committee to invite the facilities manager to have a similar discussion.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, absolutely. And I believe this one is awaiting a paper number. I don't think it's been formally introduced yet. That's correct. I'm happy to work on it with you, Madam Chair. as well as our water and sewer superintendent, DBW commissioner. I know that there are communities that have adopted lead ordinances, neighboring communities pursuant to federal regulations and similar ordinances around lead in water. So they have kind of a template document that they're looking at. So I'd be interested to sit down with, get that template, work with them. Maybe the two of us can sit down with them We can bring that here to this committee to begin the process of passing that ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: This would be about private. This is about private connections to the public. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I'm happy to. I just think that's my true title.
[Zac Bears]: I think Councilor Collins' intent here is that because of the significant, that we know that very large vehicles and heavy vehicles damage our roads much more than lighter, smaller vehicles should, given the impact on road conditions, should those, should we all be paying the same flat rate on our excise tax just based on the value? You know, you could have a, I could have a, $100,000 sports car that weighs very light. I don't. Maybe Councilor Scarpelli can get me in on the solar industry and we can figure that out. Or I could have a 5,000, 6,000 pound 25-year-old truck, right? And I'm paying almost nothing on the truck because it's worth almost nothing, but it's damaging the road way more than the lighter, more expensive higher value car. So the intent here is to at least ask the legislature if they would let us assess our excise tax based on impact on road condition in addition to just the value of the vehicle.
[Zac Bears]: No, if I could to that point, I've had some good conversations. I think maybe the clerk and I and, and the engineer had a conversation in the hall a couple weeks ago. That's basically where we're at. So things are not being issued until backlogs of promised repairs and maintenance begin to happen is essentially my understanding. I don't want to go beyond the scope of a short, informal conversation versus what I agree with the motion to have a full conversation. But, you know. That was my understanding of where we're at, certainly with our friends at National Grid. Obviously, I don't think the MWRA and others are of the same scope, but I'll leave it at that. There is also, and I'm trying to find it in here, there is some stuff in the, there's some provisions in the, Municipal Empowerment Act proposed by the governor regarding some accountability for the utility companies. It may have just been double poles. I'm trying to find it right now, but it would give the city more authority around double pole enforcement. The section allows cities and towns to enforce the statutory prohibition on double poles. Penalties authorized to be imposed are limited to $1,000 per occurrence.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's probably true.
[Zac Bears]: And I was just pulling this up, because I couldn't remember if it was just double poles, or if there was a more expansive state law around giving us a little bit more authority over the utilities. It looks like it's just double poles.
[Zac Bears]: My little joke gavel. One of the blow up ones.
[Zac Bears]: Trust me, when we get to the budget, it'll feel like that for all of us. We'll all be wearing big red noses.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, just 2 things 1 on this topic, you know, we have, we have seen some very, very targeted increase in the forestry department. I think we added 2 tree climbers last budget. Not a ton, but a little bit of movement there. So, you know, I know. and Representative Donato and the administration and I were able to pull together a bunch of money for tree planting and stump removal last year, a combination of CDBG, state ARPA earmark, a little bit of bonding that we did. So there's been some movement on this. The only other thing I wanted to add was I just wanted to note Because I put it in as there's a paper and committee holdover from actually now three councils ago 19-554 is a resolution to add noise barriers along Route 93. It actually was a resolution offered by Councilor Scarpelli end of 2019. It is you handed out the the item report. Thank you Chair Callahan. I just wanted to note that's still in committee that has not been done. I do believe we were on some emails with Rep Donato in 2020 or 2021 about an update, but we were still very far down the list.
[Zac Bears]: panels then yeah but then it fell apart so it again was still in yeah that's still going and they ripped all the trees down so there's even less really it's even worse now yeah so that whole fountain street area all the way up to gillis field all the way down to salem street rotary really and down from the river something rotary to the river quite frankly could use it too but um
[Zac Bears]: No, I just wanted to note that it's, it's, it's still there. I am not on the governing agenda, but it is a paper and committee that has been held over as an active paper from prior councils.
[Zac Bears]: Already. Yeah, I'm going to live under a solar panel at the Scarpelli residence. Butler Street, rear.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. It was not formally called.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it was not. Sorry. It was discussed.
[Zac Bears]: It's not on for discussion tonight, but it was meant to, yes, it's a new way of doing the agenda. It's kind of an unfinished business item, but I'm sure we can entertain any comment. Of course. We just had an informal conversation about it. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: if I could I just have it here the full resolution from 2019 was be it resolved that the city administration looking to adding noise barriers along route 93 on the north side to mirror what is on the south side of route 93 and I believe it if something we're saying it's it's 93 north and 93 south there's barriers on the 93 south side but not on the 93 north side which would be the east side right
[Zac Bears]: It sounds like it's worded properly to satisfy the Department of Transportation. I agree with you that that that the 93 North is on the east side.
[Zac Bears]: I was councilor Scarpelli in 2019, not to put it anywhere.
[Zac Bears]: It does not.
[Zac Bears]: If I could, yeah, and I just want to mention, yeah, there's, and this is where it's kind of, I think the crux of this whole issue around facilities and streets and sidewalks, we have a capital improvement plan or investment plan, whatever the acronym stands for. that is not attached to, at least in a way that I can meaningfully see, and if I or we cannot meaningfully see it, I would guess that most cannot meaningfully see it, to the assessments, pavement management plan assessment, the sidewalk assessment, and then the yet-to-be-completed facilities assessment. And that's where it's, I think I said this when the call-in center was on, the call-in center was like, oh, well, that's impossible, basically. And I was like, that can't be impossible. It's just math. to say, okay, yes, so we're investing a hundred whatever million over the next six years of capital improvements, great. How much does that accomplish? How much of the actual need does that get us down the road to fixing? How, what does that, and what are we getting from that investment where we're bringing something to state of good repair, where we're not spending good money after bad, or we're not being penny smart and pound foolish. And that's, again, just where the real frustration for me comes in is, great we're spending you know it's we all we can all say it's the same thing i think i said the other night about the budget it's the biggest budget ever of course it's the biggest budget ever inflation is the highest it's ever been everything costs more than it's ever cost before every sequential budget better be the biggest budget ever otherwise we just cut a bunch of stuff So it's the same question here. We're spending $140 million on capital improvements. Great. If we need $2 billion, then we're getting 5% of the way over five years. So it'll take us 100 years to get there, which means we'll never get there. So sorry to rant, but thank you, Madam Chair. I'm missing my position down here on the floor.
[Zac Bears]: I've been up at the podium all month. All rants aside. I have to get it all out.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins is not here, so. Keeping the leadership team happy. I'll second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Um, I think, yeah, just to add. That basically what we want to bring to this committee as a starting point is a draft of the categories and, you know. Housing, affordability, housing, production, business development. uses and dimensional requirements, whatever those might be. Then we can develop, co-create a list of goals that we want within each category. Then personally, I mean, obviously, it's up to the chair, but as a member of the committee, I would expect probably almost at least once a month. But one of the reasons this committee is meeting twice a month is that it has this project and then a bunch of other projects. There may be pieces of this project on the agenda every two weeks for this committee to work through. We might say, March, we're going to do housing production, right? So we want to look at. For housing affordability, we want to look at inclusionary this that the other 1st meeting. go through the basics of it, go through an initial proposal. We have questions, updates, and comments. We send that back to our consultants, the NS Associates folks. Maybe we need legal input from the Bobrowsky Silverstein firm. And then that could come back like two weeks later, and we could discuss the amended and updated version, and maybe we move that forward. And I think the other piece of this that we discussed so far was there may be some like low-hanging fruit that we get at right away. In a category, and then there may be some things that need 3, 6, 9 months, you know, or more to get through really big changes and decisions. So, you know, for example, just on the zoning map, the current zoning. the digital map is pretty much ready to go. Even if we're changing the map completely in this term, which may well be what we do, it still benefits the permitting process to have the digital map of the existing zoning in place. So maybe we pass that early and then we pass a new digital map in several months.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just super quickly. I think this may be one of the projects where it gets its own document, and it's like, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. We all agree on a set of categories. I think if exactly for the public, we should say, you know, This meeting is going to be on this topic, not on all 12, you know, we'll agree on the 12 to start or whatever, 7 or 9 or whatever it is. Each meeting is discrete on each topic as best as we possibly can. Maybe there's a little bit of a, we have to do a formal vote formality to move something along. That's been amended. But try to keep the topics clear and each each meeting of this committee. This week, we're talking about Mystic Avenue this week. We're talking about citywide housing affordability this way. We're talking about, you know, what our. corridors are going to look like between our squares, right? And those are just example potential topics. And keep that so that all of us can bring all of our ideas about corridors to the corridors meeting. The public can bring their ideas about corridors to the corridors meeting. Ideally, once since we'll have those kind of sections off first, we can inform people weeks, maybe even months in advance about when we're going to be taking up specific things. It won't be perfect, but I think that's My biggest, I think the biggest advantage of the way that we did committee of the whole before this is it was always on one topic. So it was very clear to everybody what the message of the meeting was. I think one of the things we're going to have to think about and being clear about with this new. committee model is trying to preserve some of that. So that it's not we're meeting on 17 planning and permitting things in one night and people don't know what's what and what's happening. And I think for this project, especially this is going to be, that's kind of at least where I'm coming at it from. And I think where Chair Collins is, and I also think it's also where PDS is and where Innes Associates and the lawyer, you know, that consulting team is, everyone's kind of on the same page. Chunk it out, break it up and be clear. We're not trying to do 12 things at once, but do 12 things relatively in sequence as best as we can. And luckily, we have the advantage of. this group meeting twice a month so we can do a little bit, you know, won't be as much time in between. Or if we need to do two meetings for a really hefty topic, spread it across two weeks, we'll have a little bit more flexibility and maybe we'll find that we need to meet even more. And that's going to be another adventure through this process. But it's similar to how we did the recodification, I think, as well in the last term. Well, across two terms, actually. I'm like, how long has this been in the first my first term? You know, we kind of went through If you look at the zoning ordinance, there's 10 or 11 sections in the new one, and we went through each one. We were looking at dimensional requirements, we're looking at zones and uses, we're looking at all the other special regulations, that kind of thing. I think it'll be hopefully similar here.
[Zac Bears]: No, we were doing that the other week and I was like, yeah, let's go. I like that. It makes it hard for Adam to take notes though.
[Zac Bears]: I'll just add that it was super helpful. We did short-term rentals as part of the zoning recodification, so we have done that before. We took projects that had been proposed individually and put them in through the zoning process.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, yeah. I think pretty simple. We have the city charges fees for a variety of things. Some of those fees are set by the council, some of them are set by departments, some of it depends on state law, some of it depends on the ordinance. I really think this is a three-step process. One, what are fees that we set? Or maybe we look at all the fees and we can say, here's the ones that we set, here's the ones that we don't. If we don't, say to the group that does set them it's probably time to take a look at these they haven't been updated in a while for the ones where we are the authority for setting them ask departments to submit feedback on when was the last time you believe the fee schedule was updated what are similar fees and and you know comparable communities and then we can look at those for different departments and different sections of the city and update the fee schedule to be more reflective of the cost for administering these various programs for each department as well as incentivizing the behaviors that we want to incentivize by having them and as well as making sure that we're in line with what, you know, we don't want someone crossing the street, the border from Arlington into Medford and saying, well, in Arlington, this costs $100 and in Medford, it costs $10 because A, it shouldn't be that different across the street from each other. B, quite frankly, the city of Medford will be leaving some revenue on the table and we know that there is a need for revenue to support many of our city departments. That is the intent here. And I think also in the long term, after we've done a comprehensive assessment of where we are, the goal would be that in the future, every year or two, the council would have a document that they could look back on and say, okay, we know that the fees for X, Y, and Z were updated in 2022 or 2024. We're going to review it in 2026 or whenever they may want to be, whatever schedule they may want to. a future council may want to look at. But at least get that all together, because I do know, talking to a lot of departments, that their fees have not been updated in a long time.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think it needs to be that onerous. I think it would be kind of a starting point just Maybe at one meeting, it could just be a quick agenda item to send a request out to all departments for the fees that they have and what they want updated. Once we get all that information back outside of meeting, you or I or some group of the committee could compile all that information into a clear document. Then we can have a meeting where we review it, get any recommendations from department heads, make our own recommendations, and then proposed or recommended out of this committee changes to the regular meeting to the full council. So I think maybe three or four meetings over six to 12 months, depending on how quickly departments are able to get back to us with information and how many questions and recommendations we may have.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just for me, if departments have specific plans, that's great. That's even easier. I know DPW just did a whole batch of changes because there were many fees that were just under the discretion of the commissioner.
[Zac Bears]: Just in those discussions, did they feel it should be independent of the zoning reform? Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: Did the PDS staff feel like it should be independent of zoning reform? Yes, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and doing it sooner could make sense. It could help with the good landlord tax credit too, because we're going to need some set of information. And if we're licensing everybody, It helps with a lot of things. It even eventually helps with residential exemption if we ever go down that route.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, madam president, if I could just comment on the 2 papers in committee. So, the 1st, 1, I think we had a number of issues in my 1st term. Around health and safety issues for tenants, some code related, some not related some. Tenants unions and property managers and conditions that were presented to the council and photographs that were just not acceptable. And I think some of what we're hearing around rental licensing and the sanitarians and the building inspectors wanting a little bit more. teeth in that process. I think that paper and committee could align really well with the rental licensing.
[Zac Bears]: It's the 21-070 update on complaints and inspection process for reporting health and safety issues for tenants. Great, thank you. And then 21-543, there's something that's not in here that I don't know if we want to go down this road. Maybe we do, maybe we don't. I'm kind of more leaning in this direction. Councilor Scarpelli will remember an outdoor committee of the whole meeting that we had the Saturday before the 2021 election. We had some on-site meetings at Irving Street and Brooks. We also had an on-site meeting at Cotting West North and Auburn. That was pretty well attended. 25, 30 people were there at that intersection where you have a one-way and you have two one-ways meeting and then a two-way street that goes like this right by. Whole Foods, Walkling Court, the Mystic River, it's a very high traffic area, but not high traffic just for cars, high traffic for pedestrians, strollers, bicyclists. It's a really highly walkable area. It is essentially a walking destination to the grocery store for a whole neighborhood. Todd Blake came out, he presented a whole fantastic series of short-term upgrades that you can put at the site that didn't require this intensive curbing, et cetera, et cetera, would have prevented cars from going down a street, Cotting Street one way, much more effectively. All of this would have been at the cost of, I believe, one moving, not even eliminating, moving one parking spot. That was honestly not even frequently according to, I believe, Mr. Blake went out several times, it's not often occupied. All of that work from the director, from this council, from the 30 residents who showed up and said, hey, this is a great idea, and all of that went to the traffic commission. And then the traffic commission, none of the people who came to our meeting showed up at the traffic commission. One person who would have been affected by the moving of the parking spot showed up at the traffic commission, and the entire thing was put on the table and hasn't been touched in two years. So I got a little bit of a, I'll be honest and axe the grind on this one because I think there's a lot of people in that neighborhood who would feel a lot better off with a little bit tighter of a traffic pattern, a little bit shorter sidewalks, paint based fixes that would make that entire intersection better. So I'm hoping the traffic commission will reconsider, but I think it brings up a bigger question that we may want to consider in this committee. We have a huge agenda. It may not be worth adding in this term, but maybe it is, which is that this council does have the authority to. essentially dissolve the traffic commission and establish a new traffic commission by ordinance. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law, the traffic commission was passed. The current traffic commission exists as a special act of the legislature from 1958. The two-thirds vote of this council can dissolve it and can establish a traffic commission with different membership. I've spoken to many members of the right now. The traffic commission includes the chief of police. He cannot designate someone else. The director of planning who cannot designate someone else, the director of public works who cannot designate someone else, and then two resident appointments who are not confirmed by this council. It's a pretty rare traffic commission. If you look at similarly constructed traffic commissions across the region, I know for a fact that it is not I think it would be. Particularly convenient for the members of the traffic commission who are the high level executives of major departments of the city to also be serving in that role. Um or at least serving in it at all times, no matter what, without really the ability to And maybe we get down this road in a few months after having further conversations, what a different traffic commission could look like in Somerville. There is a member of the council, the head of the traffic and parking committee serves on the traffic commission. So you have a direct democratic line. around traffic and parking, which currently doesn't exist, without it being all the council and then traffic and parking becoming political decisions and not decisions by experts. But in any case, just want to put that out there as an example of something that a lot of people worked really hard on that most of the people in the neighborhood supported at least a version of. It didn't go anywhere because of how the current structure of the Traffic Commission and how it takes public input. um, is working. So I am, I am hopeful that we will kind of maybe consider something like that, especially given that most of the folks and stakeholders involved, I think would like to see some sort of reform and have a traffic commission that wasn't written by state legislature legislators in 1958. So just my last plug for the day.
[Zac Bears]: I would also just move that the TDM, Transportation Demand Management, and the green score be moved under the zoning reform project, and let's just, we can do that now and not have to worry about coming back around to it, but make it clear that those are two items that we want on the agenda for the zoning. Transportation demand management and the green score.
[Zac Bears]: Did you say benchmarking or energy disclosure should be under there? I don't know if it was discussions with PDS. Those are just the ones.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council, Administration and Finance Committee, January 30th, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Five present, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, five present, none absent. Meeting is called to order and we welcome Councilor Callaghan, as all Councilors are welcome at all committee meetings, as they are technically all committees of the whole, but the voting members are the ones who were called, the role was called for. So this is our administration finance committee meeting. It's our first standing committee meeting under the new committee meeting structure. So it's exciting time. The action and discussion items for tonight are the same as for our other committees, which is the governing agenda document that was amended at the January 24, 2024 committee of the whole meeting, taking a look at that and more detail and more depth looking at each of the. Uh, items projects, major projects, ordinances, and other oversight engagement items on the governing agenda. And also some papers and committee have made it on to the agendas for these meetings. Mostly these are the ones from. 2022 and prior there may be papers and committee from 2023 that haven't made it on here yet and then there's also items on the governing agenda document that may have not made it onto papers and committee yet. Hopefully committee chairs can work with folks in the clerk's office and over the next meeting or two as the standing committees start to meet we can flesh this out, get all of the different papers that have been referred to all of the different committees onto the agendas, and then both the agenda and the tracking document in the clerk's office will be a great place for folks to look and see what has been referred to committee, what is kind of sitting on the table in committee for future discussion. So that's the intent here to start. I am hoping this will be somewhat of a model for tomorrow night's meetings and for meetings in two weeks for standing committee chairs It's really just to get our feet wet, start with the committee, look at everything that's been referred out to us, or that the council has said, hey, we think the committee is going to be working on this, and then we can go from there. But as the subcommittee on licensing, permitting, and signs will probably soon be aware, there are some things that are going to come up a little faster than that. So we'll be getting our feet wet and doing substantive business at the same time. So on action discussion items 24-006 resolution that each council committee review the 2024-2025 council governing agenda as amended at the January 24th, 2024 committee of the whole meetings. So I have here and I'll share my screen. Copy of that document, and if folks looked at the digital packets for this meeting, you'd see there's like, kind of a lot of supporting materials. We'll figure out exactly. The format in which these agendas are going to look like, or the packets are going to look like in the future, because right now they're including all of the supporting materials, even for items that are that are just on the table and the papers and committee and. that has created some pretty long agendas, so we may not want to have the packets look like that. But for this document, we're here in the Administration and Finance Committee, and we had a few items that we discussed. We had major projects, the annual budget process, revenue generation slash Proposition 2 1⁄2, classification and compensation study implementation. We had ordinances, budget ordinance, commercial vacancy tax, good landlord tax credit, local option. Community Benefits Agreement Ordinance, Percent for Art Ordinance, Paid Family Medical Leave, Extended Illness Leave Bank. And we also had some oversight and engagement around financial review and long-term budget planning and forecasting, and reviewing relevant city ordinances and regulations. So we have that from the governing agenda. We can take a look at it in a minute. We also had some papers in committee from previous councils. We had a paper from 2017 about a municipal mini bonds program. There's a paper from 2019, a recommendation to accept the provisions of general law, chapter 71, section 37 M, which is about school committee, school department, and city side sharing different financial and other staff. There's a resolution from 2020 that the council hire additional legal services. One of my resolutions to create a draft ordinance for a pilot commission is on payment in lieu of taxes, a draft ordinance around the extended illness leave bank, that's in the governing agenda, resolution on state paid family medical leave program, and a resolution to draft a budget ordinance for the city of Medford. So that was just some of the stuff from the papers and committee as well. But that, I think, is a general scope of everything that this committee is planning to take a look at this term. And I'm interested in folks, new members may have questions about some of these papers and committee from prior councils, or really just what folks are thinking, first glance, first thought, looking at the governing agenda and the agenda for this meeting. What are our questions? What are things we need to dig in deeper for? Are there, you know, requests for additional information or records from prior meetings that we want to kind of get on the table and make sure that everyone has all the information they need as we move forward? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: So anything that's on here, someone could motion right now to kind of bring up one of these items. And if we wanted to take some sort of formal action on it, I think even just the fact that they're on the agenda that we're, you know, we're able to just talk about them. That's kind of the idea around this is committees could take up items that are on the table as needed. But also, you know, you could, as we've done on some of our regular meeting agendas already, The chair of the committee can say, hey, okay, I want to talk about the budget ordinance this this meeting this month. So I'm taking that from the papers and committee, and I'm moving that to the action and discussion item section of the agenda. And, you know, you could kind of have that ready to be discussed in a meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think, no, I get what you're saying. I think like there's kind of two pieces of it. Asking for the background information, pulling the records, et cetera. That's one thing. Once it's done, that can then be held for when it will be discussed. So like we can kind of get folks up to speed. And then, you know, actually saying, oh, I want to discuss this. I think the chairs would probably follow in some sense, these timelines that we've come up with. But I think it's good to get out there like earlier rather than later, rather than like, you know, we're two weeks ahead of the meeting when we want to talk about paid family medical leave. And it's like, oh, when did the council discuss this? What if, you know, put out those requests for information maybe, and we can work through the clerk's office or even make requests to the administrative staff to provide input if they have it. And then we have this paper record that builds up and then is available once we actually get into the discussion. I think we're also just going to figure this out as we move along, because it's definitely, you know, usually what would happen is be like, oh, OK, we're going to talk about this in a week or two. Let's immediately ask everyone to drop everything and start pulling research and papers from or asking for opinions and stuff like that. So I think, you know, we're kind of trying to figure that one out a little bit, too, at least from my standing. I don't know if other Councilors have thoughts on that or have thought about that. how they're gonna handle that for their own committees. Not seeing any right now. So yeah, I think going through this, we're going to be looking at the budget ordinance relatively soon. That's something I'm working with the administration to schedule for next month's meeting on February 27th. So that's one of the top priorities. We also had some stuff around revenue generation, classification and compensation study, annual budget process, kind of the start of the year. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and Councilors Collins and saying, feel free to chime in here. So, for some of these, you can kind of see the in city council is the date that it was submitted. You know, what regular meeting so you could, and I tried to pull the records for most of these as best as I could and attach them in the digital packet. But in city council is when it was proposed initially, and then in committee is whenever a committee meeting was held on those issues, or if it was referenced or discussed in a committee meeting. So you can see that some ideas, you know, to be honest, I think some of this is purely organizing like things. There's just been stuff going back. All the way to 2016, 2017 papers and committee that had never had a committee meeting on them. Um, hadn't really been discussed. I know this municipal mini bonds program is, uh. Was proposed by Councilor care of yellow, but even from the resolution, I'm not 100% sure what its intent was. And at this point, it's 7 years old, but some of the other ones. Um. We're mine and I can certainly provide context on that the pilot commission. We had some early meetings on it. There is a draft ordinance somewhere, but just hasn't been made a priority in the last 2 councils to advance that ball. So it's just 1 of those things that's sitting with. some amount of work done, and if we want to pick it up, we could move it forward. Paid family medical leave, we had a discussion with the finance department in November 2022 about what the cost would look like. It's in the $500,000 to $600,000 a year range. And that's to cover all city and school employees. And then there's a range of, does the city just do the minimum that's required by the state program, or does it, pay 100% of the premium, et cetera. And there's just kind of a budget range there. But we basically got the cost estimate, and we haven't met on it since then. I think some of the reason for that is, is there $600,000 in the budget to start that program or not? Or would the mayor want to appropriate that? There's some bigger questions there, because technically, the way the law is written, the council could just enter the program. It's within our authority to adopt, to enter the state family medical leave program under Mass General Law. But then, of course, that creates a cascading impact on, I think, under my reading of it, and I don't know if council's reading would be the same, we could join it. The city would have to program it. It would have to enter the program and then Would the money be there? Would there have to be cuts in other parts of the budget to fund that program? I don't know. So there wasn't like a general consensus agreement that this is something we should do in the short term with the administration. So it kind of. sat in committee. And then the budget ordinance, you can see here, we met on five times in 2023. And there's committee reports attached to the agenda, as well as, I think, the latest track changes. Versions of the ordinance were attached to the agenda packet digitally, not in print, because this was a 74-page print packet. I figured maybe we don't all want that anymore. But if you look at the PDF, it's in there. And the administration is the last thing we left out in December as we're waiting for the response from the administration, which they're planning to send over to us in the next couple of weeks. And then we can meet on that as one item for our February meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry. Sorry. The clerk is informing me on how these were disposed of in the meeting in 2019. Um, yeah, so this, this, this was not advanced out of committee. The proposal, this was a proposal by the mayor, mayor Burke, um, to do the security director thing. Um,
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. So that's some good context. And I did try to pull and figure out how to better distribute this information. And you can see here, this is hoping soon to be able to use this online portal for agenda and records. You can see kind of how convenient it is. get a meeting overview and see the attachments for each item. Lots of attachments for the budget ordinance, but it does help organize some of these files, at least for me. So yeah, as noted, budget ordinance, that's something we're looking at for our February 27th meeting. The other 3 items that we're looking at early here are the fiscal 25 annual budget process classification and compensation study and implementation revenue generation and prop 2 and a half planning. So, you know. for the FY25 annual budget process, I think it would be good for folks to look at the draft budget ordinances. I think we're relatively close on the timing of each spring, what the budget process will look like. The lingering questions on the budget ordinance more have to do with longer term financial planning. I don't know if Councilor Collins or Councilor Tseng, if you wanna add more specifics having been on that subcommittee as to what's outstanding around the budget ordinance. Councilor Calderon, Vice President Calderon.
[Zac Bears]: Great, yeah, so I think that'll be something for us to take a look at. The track changes versions is part of the digital packet. When we get a response from the administration that week, the clerk will forward that along to the council. And then we will be able to start probably in, I believe the first dates in that are in March. in March for us to start looking at the fiscal 23, sorry, fiscal 25 budget. Probably get some initial financial updates from the finance department and start having meetings with departments around what we're looking at in terms of the fiscal 25 budget. So that'll be one item off the top of the list. And I think the goal is also to pass the budget ordinance around the same time that that process will start. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: So it'll be in this meeting on the 27th. So it'll be the... Oh, this meeting? Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and this is where we... I think we have red lines. So you can see in here there's some pretty significant edits to the... to the initial proposal. But we get city council. So we'll have some stuff that we need to start doing in March to get recommendations out to the administration. We're going to be getting a schedule of preliminary budget meetings April 15 to May 15 with department heads. Mayor and the finance director are gonna provide an estimated budget allocation to the Medford Public Schools by March 1st. And so there's gonna need to be kind of a shot clock checklist here. And it may well be that we're gonna be, we may well be discussing now that I'm reading this, some of our budget recommendations on the, at the 20th, on the 27th as well. So, and this is, I was hoping we'd be done in December so that we'd have a kind of clear locked in timeline, but we're still negotiating some final details. But then we will get the comprehensive budget proposal by May 31st, and that will contain some additional information that we are. We're hoping for. One of the things that we really were discussing would be a huge benefit, I think, to the Council and the public is to see in each department budget just a top line number. Let's say that the fire department budget is increasing by $1 million. How much of that is because of fixed cost growth and how much of that is actually something new? Is it just contracts have gone up and the cost of X has gone up and Y has gone up? and that million dollar increase is really just paying for something that we already have? Or is there actually a new position or a new program or something else that is being funded in the budget? Because I think when we talk about biggest budget ever every year, I mean, yes, it's the biggest budget every year because inflation is going up every year. So, you know, is it really historic or is it actually just keeping up with inflation? Um, so that's we're going to have some budget related stuff hitting us relatively soon in February, at least the budget ordinance and maybe some. Some additional stuff beyond that, but there'll be fair warning to the committee and 2 Councilors who aren't on the voting members of the committee as well. The classification and compensation study, I don't know if, um. Councilor Collins, Councilor Tseng, if you want to speak to that at all. No. Basically, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's pretty much my understanding. I think, you know, something that might be valuable would be to put out a motion to just request an update on when we can expect the study from the call-in center. And then we could get, you know, we could start reviewing that in earnest and how we can assist in the implementation process of updating the personnel ordinance and kind of what the timeline is on the administration side for when we can do that, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so the positions are paid. There's a thing called a CAF. CAF is an acronym for something. It is not an acronym. Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Right. Right, yes, it's the CAF does not line up with compensation and classification, but that's basically. Yeah, something in any case. The CAFs, and they're not just CAFs, CAFs are one of the, actually several structures, are the tiers that the jobs sit in for what their compensation can be. And those are technically ordinances. So whatever the jobs were posted at, whatever CAF that they're in, CAF 13 being X amount of dollars to X amount of dollars, there's ranges and steps within them. Those people are basically what I'm saying is the people who were hired for those positions are working at whatever the CAF says, whatever CAF that position is in right now. And there's not really a lot of room for negotiation, other than maybe people can come in at a higher step of a CAF, for example. So I don't know what the administration, I actually don't know what For example, what step of what calf the economic development director was hired at, but it's not kind of an open negotiation. So that's basically what this is. My understanding is it's looking at the, the calf structure for city employees. There's also public works. set of classifications and compensation tiers for public works employees. And there's a couple of other ones as well. And looking at those and saying, are these competitive? Are we going to be able to bring in, are there positions that are sitting empty because their compensation is too low or they're at too low of a CAF level? That used to be available on MuniCode. If you go back to the 2017 MuniCode, you can see what the CAFs were in 2017. We've been working to try to get that back on MuniCode so that you can see that part of the ordinance online. And the administration has basically said, what we have now and what is existing is not in a condition that we'd want to upload it to MuniCode. So we want to do the study and create the new CAF structure. And then that's when we'll put that back onto the city ordinances. And I believe you have to go to the HR department to request the CAF Yeah, that's one ordinance that's not maintained in the clerk's office right now. So the only one, the clerk reminds me. So that's kind of how that is all working. And basically, that's why it's so important that we know when we get a timeline back from the administration. This has been going on for I think the first time we heard about this study was a couple of years ago. We may have even been before the last term. I kind of remember Chief of Staff, former Chief of Staff, Dave Rodriguez, mentioning it. So sometime in 2021.
[Zac Bears]: Motion by Councilor Leming to request an update on the classification and compensation study. Do we want to put a time when we would like that? March. I see like four different ideas. I'm gonna go to Councilor Lazzaro, Vice President Collins, Councilor Sagan.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, just seconding Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I was gonna advise similarly. Okay, so on the motion of Council, let me request an update on the classification and compensation study seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, as amended by Councilor Collins, that that update come by February 20th. Great, and we'll hold that till the end of the meeting. Okay, all those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes as amended. So okay, great. So we'll get an update on that. We'll have budget ordinance update for the next meeting. In terms of revenue generation, proposition two and a half planning, And I'm happy to go over it in more detail if requested, but there was an agreement budget agreement reached by President Morell and I with the mayor for the fiscal 24 budget. It included a variety of outcomes. 1 being we'll talk about the budget ordinance, which we've been doing another 1 being. the creation of a financial task force which would consist of members of the city council and the school committee and the city's finance administration. There have been two or three preliminary meetings of that task force and further meetings are immediately forthcoming to essentially say, this is the group, this is what its charge is, this is what its timeline is. So I'm a member of that task force, the vice president, the vice chair of the school committee, the finance director, the mayor. And so essentially, that's the group that's been meeting right now. We're going to figure out an announcement of that group in a more formal way with specific deadlines and timelines and thoughts. So, when it comes to the revenue generation and prop two and a half planning. The initial phase of that, I know that's an 18 month project on this agenda, but the initial phase. is stemming from that budget agreement, and there should be some more public information about that in the next month or so, I would say. And then that can kind of start to inform discussions that we need to have in this committee, discussions that the school committee is going to need to have around what's looking like right now. the MSBA process for the high school, what are our urgent operating budget needs, what are other major capital projects, and how do we wanna fund those looking at debt exclusions or operating budget overrides. So more to come on that. Once that release is out, I'm sure there'll be lots of questions and discussion. If folks do wanna talk about that in more detail, I'm happy to answer some more questions about the budget agreement, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: I am hopeful by mid February. Great. It won't be like, this is what we're doing announcement as much as it does. This is what we're talking about doing announcement, but that's something. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: And I think too, it's probably fair to say it would not be likely would not be impactful on the fiscal 25 budget discussion, just given the timelines that would be needed to pass an override vote, for example. at least a good chunk of fiscal 25. So we have a number of other items on here that are not starting until next year or looking at, you know, a May start, but Any discussion on finance review, forecasting, commercial vacancy tax, good landlord tax credit? Has anyone taken a look at the ordinances relevant to this committee and said they're seeing something that they really want to update? I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: So to be referred to. Yeah. Great. And I want to throw out just 1 other idea and it just kind of has been percolating in my head. the vacancy tax, the good landlord credit, looking at the residential exemption, looking at potentially expanded exemptions and the Municipal Empowerment Act that the governor just filed and how much of that will pass. It might be worth having kind of a, you know, this question around the financial task force and revenue generation is a full scope discussion around the scale of additional revenue needs, I think, The questions around the landlord tax credit residential exemption, maybe even commercial vacancy tax, depending on how we can do that are kind of distributional questions about like, how should the burden be shouldered? And how should that be changed? So there might be kind of like 2 big bucket conversations around. We know we need more, this is what we're prioritizing for larger new revenue, but also there's a bunch of ideas floating around about using the tax system, the structure generally around the property tax to incentivize different behaviors and to distribute burdens differently. So that could be kind of one of those discussions as you were noting that since they all kind of impact each other and yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, I think there's and I think that's why it might be good to bring in the assessor as well and have some conversations there. I don't know what the mechanism of the vacancy tax would be and if it's some sort of. charge on your two and a half levy bill or something. Basically, if there's anything that's related to rate setting of the property tax levy, those discussions need to happen well in advance of the December rate setting discussion. Like we just had one in December. I think several folks were there, councilors elected at the time were there. But I think, you know, for residential exemption, Ted and Ellen before Ted has said, you know, I need two extra assessors and I need six to 12 months to set that up. So that's a big one. I don't know if good landlord is maybe a little more targeted or if you want to do those both at the same time. So you might be looking at certainly the next rate setting in December 2025 for some of the simpler stuff, like if there's a bigger exemption for seniors. you know, that's an easier one to kind of work out. Cause we already have that in existence. Um, I would guess if we're talking about like the residential exemption combined with a good landlord tax credit, just like trying to tweak the whole distributional structure of the levy, probably December, 2020, uh, 2025, sorry, I'm getting my years, I'm ahead a year, I'm getting my fiscal years and calendar years confused, but December 24 and December 2025, depending on the scale. And then again, the vacancy tax, I'm not as sure on because I don't know what the mechanism is. If it's like, it's something separate, maybe it's something that can move faster because it's outside of all of the complexities of rate setting for Proposition 2.5. for how Prop 2.5 requires us to set the levy?
[Zac Bears]: We have a member of the public. You might need to press yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, William.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, it's on it's in the governing agenda document, which so and that's what we're supposed to be doing. But yeah, we can we can hold the details until it's formally been referred and until we have some people other than us doing our best. Yes. Vice President Collins, first time I've gotten that right.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Any other further thoughts or discussion on what this committee is going to be looking at over the next 23 months?
[Zac Bears]: Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Give me one second here. You want to look at the draft timeline again? It sounds like there's a motion from Councilor Saint to add. Motion to add the pilot ordinance to the governing agenda. Got it. On the motion of Councilor Saint to add the pilot ordinance to the governing agenda, seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. And Councilor Collins, you wanted this back up?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further discussion? Any questions, any thoughts? Any comments from members of the public in the chamber or on Zoom? Seeing no one in the chamber, two standing at the podium and seeing no hands on Zoom. I think we are at an end.
[Zac Bears]: Motion by Vice President Collins to adjourn. Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council, Committee of the Whole, January 24th, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Present. Seven present. Zero absent, the meeting is called to order. 24-006, offered by myself, President Bears, is a resolution to propose a 2024-2025 council governing agenda framework and request the councilors submit proposals by January 18th, 2024. Be it resolved by the city council that councillors submit items to be included in a 2024-2025 Manfred City Council governing agenda document, draft template attached in packet that will guide the work of this council and its committees during this term. Be it further resolved that councillors submit items to the clerk by Thursday, January 18th, 2024 for further discussion in committee of the whole. So thank you to everyone for your submissions to this agenda. I was able to get those submissions from the clerk and compile them into this larger framework, which has gone from, I think, about 18 pages to 30 something pages. So lots of good stuff was submitted. And I think that's great. You know, we're not going to. necessarily get through and decide on every little nitty gritty detail of every item tonight. But my intent is to quickly summarize this document. Again, as I did at the meeting, it was introduced, our first meeting. Then we can go through the items that are in each committee and we can flag A, if there's a major disagreement, if there are folks, individual Councilor or multiple Councilors who say, I don't think this is an item we should be having on this agenda. We can discuss that if necessary, we can vote to remove it or not. We can also take a look at there are a number of items in here that have been, you know, not quite necessarily introduced yet in terms of they haven't been formally introduced as official council papers. So we should just note that and, you know, folks should be ready to introduce items. And then there were some items that either didn't necessarily have a lead Councilor, Or didn't have quite a didn't have a timeline or didn't have a full description or a goal. So we can at least note those and either in committee or individual, you know, they can be discussed in committees when referred to committees, or they could be. You know, individual Councilors could introduce the further fleshed out more formal item. They may have taken a very short summary and submitted it, but they may have I don't know. You guys might have more information on different things and ideas that you want to do. And also, if there's, you know. I think this is in the wrong committee. It should go somewhere else. I think that's a flag as well. And then the last thing I want to do before we get out of here tonight is just make sure that we kind of refer this document to each of the committees so that they can have a chance to review them. I think that's a good start for the 1st meetings of those committees. You can only committee chairs if they also want to. formally discuss other items in addition to reviewing this. Of course, that's the discretion of the chairs. And also, Vice President Collins and I have talked about looking at a schedule for how often we would review this collectively and how often leadership would try to make updates to the document. So that's pretty much what I'm thinking for tonight. Does anyone have anything else they want to touch on this document that I didn't just kind of mention? any other types of review we want to do of this tonight. Councilor Collins, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other comments before we get going? Cool. So just to summarize again, the intent of this document is a framework, a living document of the work that this council is doing actively or over the next essentially two years of this elected term. It's kind of a document that can serve as a guidepost for us to see. I mean, I think it's an ambitious agenda. I think there's a ton of great stuff in here. And we can see how much of it we've gotten done. Are we keeping to timelines? Are things that are taking longer than expected? Are there new items that have come up that maybe need to take priority over some of the items that we have in here today? You know, for example, I had a lot of ideas in January 2020 that were very different by April 2020, given the circumstances of the pandemic. So that's really the intent here. This is split up by committee. So there was committee of the whole. There were a few ordinances that were in committee of the whole that we were looking at. So those are still, we still need to work through those and hopefully work through those. They are mostly done, I would say, or at least there have been many meetings on the way to completion. And that's the tree ordinances, tree preservation protection or replacement ordinances, leaf blower ordinance and food truck ordinance. So those are kind of existing projects that are carrying over. Some of these other items are existing projects too, but those were, really pretty fully baked and we're already in committee of the whole food truck. And then just for the rest of this, I just want to quickly, you know, for I'm sure councillors have read the committee assignments and whatnot, but if there is anybody, you know, for folks on zoom, anybody watching on streaming or on TV, the other seven committees are an administration and finance committee, which I am chairing. There's an education and culture committee chaired by Councilor Scarpelli, a governance committee chaired by Councilor Tseng. Planning and Permitting Committee, chaired by Vice President Collins. Public Health and Community Safety Committee, chaired by Councilor Lazzaro. Public Works and Facilities Committee, chaired by Councilor Callahan. Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, chaired by Councilor Leming. Um, so we'll go through each of those committees, the way the committee structure works. We are all members of all the committees in terms of we can all attend and speak up. But in terms of voting members, 5 Councilors are voting members of each committee. Um, so that's what it will be used in terms of quorum and in terms of the votes of items out of committee. If you are interested in even more detail, you can see on the city website, what are the former subcommittees that are now kind of making up these new committees? What are some of the policy areas, city departments and city ordinances that each committee is responsible for reviewing and for, you know, kind of just overseeing? So that's a general summary. I want to get into the meat of this so we can go through each committee and flag any issues. We started with Committee of the Whole. We have the three projects in Committee of the Whole. We have the Tree Preservation Protection Replacement Ordinance, the Leaf Blower Ordinance, and the Food Truck Ordinance. And the goal here is to really finish those up in the next three to six months at most, so get those done early in the term. Does anyone have any questions, objections? Go to Councilor Callaghan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so these were already these had been in subcommittee and had been referred out to committee of the whole, so they kind of had moved through part of the process already. I think something we're going to want to figure out this term. Since technically every committee is a committee of the whole do we want traditionally the step had been well, I don't want to say traditionally. A way that ordinances had been moved through a process was for it to be introduced on the council agenda. For a draft to be created either by what we have in-house counsel, the city solicitor, the assistant solicitor, generally in the last term, it was more often the draft was created by a council member, maybe working with a member of departmental staff, occasionally in concert with the KP law. legal counsel, the outside legal counsel for the city. Whatever either is an idea or a formal draft would be proposed at regular meeting, that would then be referred to a subcommittee and discussed, and then that would have been referred to committee of the whole so that everyone could get a swing at it, and then it would go to regular meeting. Maybe we don't need to take that extra step now, but given that it's a new committee structure, I think. We can decide, you know, and committees themselves can decide. All right, the 5 of us have taken a look, but we really want to take an extra step. Maybe. The charter example, if we ended up with a draft charter coming out of governance committee, maybe that should then go to committee of the whole for another meeting or 2, something like that. But. You know, I think that's something new in the process, but essentially those three items are a committee of the whole because they were had already moved through to that stage of the previous term. Any questions, concerns, thoughts around the three ordinances that are in committee of the whole. And obviously, we can get to the details when we meet on that. Kit and I were trying to figure out exactly who we were waiting on, what feedback to continue on each one.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, yeah, and so that's the, you know, for these ones we have, we have that, and I think that would be good, you know, for chairs, committee chairs to maybe add that into the items in their committees once we're there. All right, the next one is administration finance committee. So we have a lot of stuff here. The topic based committees or policy area based committees are split up into three sections, major projects, ordinances, and then oversight and engagement. So for administration and finance, we have major projects, the annual budget process, revenue generation, proposition two and a half, and the classification and compensation study implementation. Then we have ordinances, we have budget ordinance, commercial vacancy tax, which has yet to be introduced, good landlord tax credit local option, community benefits agreement ordinance which has to be introduced percent for our ordinance paid family and medical leave extended illness leave bank and then in oversight and engagement we have financial review and long-term budget planning and forecasting and we have another item and this appears in every committee review relevant city ordinances and regulations so the idea there is if we have nothing else going There's probably an ordinance or regulation that should to be looked at for updating because there's quite a bit of anachronistic and archaic ordinance and regulatory language in the city's legal body.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think it should be sequential. I think the question was, if there's something that maybe could fit into two committees, how would that work? I mean, conceivably, the committees could have a joint meeting. I don't know what that would look like or if it necessarily would make sense. But I think if you're thinking it could be in both, maybe send it to the one you think where it's more relevant to start. And then if at the end of that process, it feels like it needs input from another committee, the committee could refer it to the other committee. But I think also, you know, just given the composition of the bodies, you know, we can get that in. Yeah, I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: And I think those, it's really not like a, super strict and there's no checklist of steps that it has to go through. And I think it's really whichever committee is considering it, whatever they feel comfortable with the disposition when they feel like they've done their work is probably fine. Um, and you know, just cause it's an administration and finance doesn't mean you can't invite the planning staff if that's for your example. So are there any anything in there that folks are really against that they don't want to have on the table for this governing agenda or think should be in a different committee or otherwise have questions and thoughts about? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Councilor Collins, Vice Mayor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah, you know, again, I think those can discussions can happen in committee unless if people are desperately formally wanting to move that they be the lead Councilor percent for our ordinance, we can happily consider it. But we have some time on those questions as well. And then I think just going through, I just want to make sure just to flag anything else here. It did look like. So we had two ordinance, two items in here that did need to be introduced formally. So that would be the commercial vacancy tax and the community benefits agreement ordinance. So just flagging that we do have lead Councilors. We have councilor Leming on the commercial vacancy, community benefits agreement. We had councilors Collins and saying, so at some point somebody needs to introduce those items and refer them to the administration and finance committee. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: think any time before.
[Zac Bears]: And I think again, it's a guidepost, right? It's like, okay, you know, and I think these chart one of the things I really appreciate the chart move, which Councilor Collins had kind of started because it's like, oh, I can visualize how much work is happening and when in the committees and the printed version doesn't quite because it's not color version doesn't quite get the, uh, There's some color coding that the red things are major projects, the yellow things are ordinances, and the green things are oversight engagement. May not always be true that that's like how much work is going into each of those, but I kind of just, you know, I figured it was a good first pass. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, and that's something, yeah, and so I think, Councilor Collins, you had talked about a monthly, we could take a look at it monthly and try to go monthly on it. If that timeline becomes burdensome for us, just in terms of, maybe we'll scale back to quarterly or something, but that was our, yeah, Councilor Collins, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Great. So I'm just trying to set my screen up here and make sure I can see. Councilor Scarpelli. Yeah, so it looks like everything else in this committee had a lead and a timeline and a general description and goal. Maybe the commercial vacancy tax could get more specific when introduced. But other than that, that all looked good. And certainly there's plenty of ordinances and regulations to look at too. So any other thoughts around administration and finance committee?
[Zac Bears]: Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think it's, there's a lot in there for sure. And yeah, I'm hoping, it'll be interesting to see something that I'm interested in. Like right now we have it kind of set up. Oh, you know, every planning and permitting, I think it's the only one that's even more fleshed out than that administration and finance. And so that's why at least in the first passes, like that's one that should be meeting twice a month. I think it'll be interesting to see based on, and I think this document gives us an indication maybe there's some committees that don't need to meet every month, and maybe there's some committees that need to meet more than once a month. And we'll start to kind of feel out what that frequency looks like, I think, as we move through the first meetings. And I think it's important for chairs to kind of be aware, you know, I think the resident services and public engagement had a lot of stuff to, not that there's not a lot of meat in quite a few of these, but it'll be interesting to see what needs to be more frequent and less frequent in terms of the committees. So the next one is Education and Culture Committee. This is one where there's not a ton of stuff right now, but I do know that there's a lot of conversation and engagement around it. So I am hoping this will get filled in a little bit more as we move through. Right now, it just has reviewing the relevant city ordinances and regulations. But again, I know there's a lot of energy around these issues. This would include arts, city events, education, history, recreation, youth affairs. There's departments, Medford Public Schools, Medford Public Library, Recreation, Parks Commission, Medford Arts Council, relevant city ordinances and regulations, Chapter 2, Article 3, Boards and Commissions, Chapter 2, Article 4, Officers and Employees. Chapter 26, Education, Chapter 62, Parks and Recreation, you know, those are, there's a whole show about parks and recreation, so I figure we can fill out a committee about it. So, you know, I'm interested to see what we can fill in here, because I know there's a lot of great ideas, tons of ideas floating around for different cultural events that the city may want to host, and different, you know, Certainly the library is such an amazing, vibrant community center with the new building, even more so than it was prior so hoping, hoping that more will fill in here and I'll go to Councilor say, I'm just going to take advantage of this opportunity and plug the Lunar New Year celebration on February 10, we'll have line, the lion dance will have
[Zac Bears]: I love that. Yeah, and I think those are great. great ways that this whole thing is about bringing people together and also kids. So I think that's a great couple of great ideas. I'll throw them down if you want to. I'll put them in my notes and they'll be in the committee report of course. If they want to be formalized in any way feel free to submit any sort of agenda item and refer it over. And I actually think that you know we do have our director of community affairs in the mayor's office who tends to organize city events. And I think this would be a great place to maybe interact with her and maybe also with Caché. Ken Kraus puts out through Caché, and I know others participate. I shouldn't just say Ken. Ken and others put out a great monthly calendar of arts and culture events in the city. So maybe there's some sort of synergy there bringing all of those different voices together and bringing new ideas and making sure that they're broadcast out, at least through our council, through the council's voice. Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Any further thoughts on Education and Culture Committee? Seeing none, I want to make sure I lose George and Matt a little bit here with this new setup. I'm excited for the when we have new microphones, to be able to press a button and I'll be able to see you in a stack and call on you in the order in which you pressed your button. So I won't have to guess on... Which is the old system. Which is the old system, yes. Yes. We will be at least restoring the functionality of 2019 to this chamber. The next item is governance committee. This is generally looking at ordinances, rules, charter and elections. Departments include the clerk's department, law department, election commission, boards and commissions. There's relevant city ordinances and regulations. I think the one to note here is that this would be a committee looking at the rules of the council, special acts of the state legislature that are relevant to Medford, as well as legislative acts accepted by the city. So provisions of state law that the city has accepted Um... So the major projects here are updates to the city charter, estimated length and timing of project is 12 to 18 months. And really this is to create a proposal for an updated city charter, two with the approval of the mayor, submit to the state house and senate for approval, reviewing the charter study committee's research and draft language, as well as proposals from prior councils. We had some discussion last night of items that may be included, city staff boards and commissions, And to begin some preliminary meetings, looks like, you know, about May, June of this year, invite the charter study committee and call center to submit what they have, if that's an advance of their final recommendations, but want to give this council a good time to dig in and kind of set out its own process and procedure. I don't think we need to go the Somerville route and take four years to put this together, especially with the Charter City Committee having done some good foundational work for us. But that's really, I think, the big project of this committee. Another piece we did discuss last night was the election department oversight report and recommendations. We did receive the after action report. I think there was general consensus that it was not a sufficient report and that some of the recommendations need to be stronger. and clearer to the public. So we'll take that motion that went out last night, Councilor Callahan's motion around democracy, pro-democracy reforms that could be done by charter ordinance or home rule petition. And then also reviewing city ordinances and regulations, you know, something that could come up in this committee, maybe, you know, was kind of thrown out on around, in recent weeks. We have a lot of boards and commissions and no rhyme or reason I can find as to who gets paid what and why. And I think that may be a topic to discuss too. We had members of the Parks Commission in the building last night for their meeting, and they came in and they said, we're the only commission that's existed since we became a city in 1892, and we don't get a dollar. And the Hormel Commission, which regulates just Hormel Stadium, gets a stipend, but the Parks Commission, which regulates 27 parks and fields or something, maybe even more than that, I can't remember the number, does not get a stipend. So there's an example of, a little bit of confusion there, and maybe we could, so that's something that could come into here too, but those are basically the only things right now that are in this committee. Any questions or discussions about the committee and the work that's in it? Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion on the Governance Committee? All right, planning and permitting, we got a lot going here. And again, I guess I maybe should have said this earlier, but if chairs want to say anything, so far it's just been myself on administration, finance, councilor Scarpelli, education, culture, councilor second, governance. If chairs wanna speak to the agenda here and how they feel about it, feel free to chime in. Planning and permitting chair, vice president Collins, we have a lot here, climate code enforcement, economic development, housing, licensing, parking, planning, permitting, science, sustainability, transportation, zoning, kind of the holistic planning and permitting work of a city. And major projects are zoning reform, which we had an interesting, good starting conversation, the vice president and I on. Ordinances are condo conversion ordinance. housing home roll petitions, reviewing the fee schedule. We have cycling safety ordinance, transportation demand management, energy disclosure, benchmarking ordinance, rental licensing ordinance, pesticide regulations, blasting and earth removal regulations, green score, and then oversight and engagement. We have reviewing the relevance of the ordinances and regulations. This committee will also be reviewing licenses, permit and sign applications as needed, which is a function that has occurred in the past. There is a specific subcommittee for that, the Subcommittee on Licensing, Permitting and Signs, chaired by Councilor Scarpelli with members Councilor Callahan and Leming. And then efficiency retrofits for existing city buildings are sorry existing buildings in the city and transit signal priority so quite a long list. I will defer to Vice President Collins if you want to talk more on this committee.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Council Vice President Collins, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Anything else that we want to talk about on the planning and permitting? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank I believe the cycling safety, transportation demand management, energy disclosure, benchmarking, rental licensing, pesticide, and green score as items that need to be submitted. We may even need to submit zoning reform formally as a new paper. The last thing we had on there was just the RFP. And then also the efficiency retrofits for existing buildings and the transit signal priority. All right, next we have public health and community safety. And we have in here, we have major projects, warming and cooling center. Alternative emergency response such as civilian oversight, one-stop center for public services. For ordinances, we have plant medicine decriminalization ordinance, overgrowth ordinance, wildlife feeding ordinance, regulating retail sales of animals raised in commercial breeding facilities. AKA the Puppy Mills Ordinance, Gender Affirming Care and Reproductive Health Care Protection Ordinance. Then for Oversight Engagement, we have Surveillance Ordinance Reporting, Housing Stability Notification Ordinance, Implementation and Enforcement, Emergency and Response Equipment Replacement, and Reviewing Relevant City Ordinances and Regulations. And I will go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think just my two cents, then I'll go to Councilor Lehman and Councilor Callahan. You know, there's been a variety of approaches. I think it's good to kind of take a two track approach, like maybe put it on the agenda and say, hey, it's something we're looking at. This is a priority, right? Stake the claim, put it out there, and then see what the options are. Go to the city departments, go to private stakeholders, go to the community, go to potential outside funders. We've had a lot of examples. The library, there were some informal conversations that Councilor Caraviello had early on with, I think, and then Director Kerr with the state board of library commissioners, and that evolved. then into a council agenda item to request that the mayor at the time consider an application for the, and now we have a new library, right? So that's an example. Councilor Marks working with a variety of people from the arts community around the arts center, you know, and it was first, it was someone looking out their window and saying, oh, this Hegner, the Hegner Center, it's a city owned building. It's empty. It's kind of run down. Could this be the Arts Center? And then many years later, Councilor Caraviello's involvement, you have the public-private partnership with Theory Wellness and Arts Collaborative Medford, where we have the Arts Center now on Mystic Ave, and there's ribbon-cutting next week, and there was a little opening ceremony over the weekend. So, you know, I could see, you know, for this, and then One Stop Service Center is really a priority of mine. not that the warming and cooling center isn't, maybe that's a path to go down. But I do think, especially in this city, honestly, for the worst, I would say, it is often looking at the outside private partnership to get new stuff like this done rather than, at least in the short run of the city, being able to have the resources to purchase a property and then rehabilitate a property and, you know, manage a, and I know, I think the Malden Warming Center is a non-profit, private, yeah, so.
[Zac Bears]: And this is a public meeting, right? So it's for the parts where you want to engage the public. The committee serves a great role. You know, formal agenda, we have the room, we have the space, etc. I'm going to Councilor Leming, Councilor Kelly, and Councilor Tseng. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Chancellor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you Councilor Saint. Anybody else? Public Health and Community Safety. All right, our next one is Public Works and Facilities for major, actually give me one second. I want to be consistent here. looking at streets, facilities, infrastructure, utilities, departments, our DPW on the kind of the street side with our highway fleet electrical and engineering, a little bit more on the facility side with our facilities manager for street parks, cemetery department, the solid waste contract, Councilor Collins being the foremost expert on this council on that. And Also, water and sewer, which we know is a huge issue in this community. We have one of the poorest condition water and sewer systems that's going to require the most updating in Massachusetts, and also our information technology department. The major projects we're looking at here are street and sidewalk repair and accessibility. the street and sidewalk pavement management reports and really understanding what is our implementation schedule. Are we meeting the recommended funding goals in those reports for not just maintaining the middling level of condition of our streets and sidewalks, but actually trying to really chunk off some significant change there. City facilities and equipment in general, I know Councilor Tseng and Collins and I have been really, and the entire city council as well, but we've had these conversations in our ordinances and rules subcommittee last term around what is the state of all of our capital assets, and what is the cost to restore all of our capital assets to a state of good repair, and we have heard pretty consistently that we can't give you, we don't know. We do not know the answers to that question and we do not have the resources to put together a process to answer that question. So we have our capital improvement plans, which spend X amount of money over the next five or six fiscal years, but there's no really goal or benchmark target to measure that other than what we have right now for street and sidewalks with the pavement management plan, which is now four fiscal years old. So, That's a big one. Really need answers there. Public restrooms and parks and squares. I move that into a major project. I think that's a major project. I think that's a significant undertaking for this committee and for the city. And then for ordinances, we had lead ordinance. We had a home rule petition to increase excise taxes for large trucks. And then for oversight and engagement, we have public utility accountability. I know our engineer, city engineer, and DPW are constantly working to try to hold public utilities accountable. The Governor's Municipal Empowerment Act, which was introduced late last week and started at the MMA conference over the weekend, Would give some some interesting teeth around double poles and some other things that utilities are just flagrantly ignoring. Our city engineers also working really diligently on. Utilities funding the projects that they've paid for in terms of mitigation for grants of location or the opening of streets. But there's still more work to do there, given that we know that National Grid is sending, I think, $1 billion a year in profits just from Massachusetts to its Dutch parent company. So that's the price of privatization that we are all paying. There's another one, the Tree Planting Volunteer Network. and also reviewing relevant city ordinances and regulations. So I will go to Councilor Callahan if there's more that you want to talk about here about the public works and facilities committee.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, and just on a letter of insight, I know that DPW is very interested in doing something there, so that should be exciting. Anything else on public works and facilities, Councilor Sasse?
[Zac Bears]: I do want to say just for my two cents that it, um, It seems to me that the big questions, there's certainly many kind of red herring arguments about we shouldn't have public restrooms because it's not safe. But it seems to me that when we are walking into the situation, At least when I've talked to people who are interested in building them, the bigger concerns, at least in the city side, have been infrastructure and logistics. So that's why I think maybe throwing it in public works makes sense, because it's like, how do we build and maintain these facilities versus. At least to me, that seems to have been the bigger concern of the major stakeholders, while the kind of not true statements about safety and health have been more reasons to just not build them and use them.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Any other comments on public restrooms? And then there is a comment online, but I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro first. All right, I saw a hand come up during this, so I'll go to Zoom and Matthew Page-Lieberman. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, appreciate the comment. I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just gonna unmute you again if you wanna clarify, Matthew.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. I appreciate that. I will go next to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and if fellow councilors want to chime in as well, my understanding, there's kind of three things here. One, the system is bad because it's old. It's one of the older systems because a lot of development in the city happened in the early 1900s, and that's when a lot of the systems were laid. And a lot of the mid-century development happened with subdivisions and private ways. So the city is not responsible for water and sewer infrastructure on private ways. and a lot of the water and sewer infrastructure on private ways was not built up to the code then, never mind the code today. So that's one piece of the puzzle. The second piece of it is that my understanding is that the Water and Sewer Commission and the DPW and Superintendent Stoneking are working on a similar assessment to the pavement management assessments for streets and sidewalks for water and sewer. The third thing is that for a long time, what is called free cash on the city side, the free cash reserve on the city side of the general fund budget is known as retained earnings for this enterprise fund. The water and sewers lives in an enterprise fund separately from most of the other city spending in the general fund. And most of the time for many, many years, the Water and Sewer Commission recommended and the council approved that retained earnings be used to reduce the rates for water and sewer instead of be used for capital projects and expenditures. And my understanding is the first time that that didn't happen in a very long time was last year when this council decided we weren't going to do that anymore. My understanding was also the DPW and the mayor were eventually, probably this year, going to start recommending that we not do that anymore. But we kind of jumped out a little bit ahead on that last year, somewhat due to procedural reasons, but also due to some discussions in this chamber with the councillors to try to use the retained earnings and keep them for capital improvements. We've had a bunch of stuff. I think we approved a loan order in our first meeting for third reading that was a bond order for MWRA loans for the water and sewer department. We did a big meter replacement. A bunch of ARPA money went to this as well because of it was allowed to by the ARPA laws, which also allows us to use it to do the water main replacement and then also do the street upgrade. But that's the only way you could use the ARPA money for street upgrades. In any case, that's a long winded answer of it seems like it's being taken very seriously and a new approach is being taken, but we don't know exactly what the requests are going to be of us yet. And I don't, I haven't seen any sort of reporting. I don't know if other Councilors have had other conversations with DPW or yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: They're definitely less regulated still. I would say that the basement flooding problem, I don't know where these houses are. There's a lot of water table management issues. Diverted flow of stormwater, you know issues, especially on private ways because some of them don't have
[Zac Bears]: So yeah, there's there's some public ways that don't have storm like we had a whole bunch of meetings last term around the high street issues with the new intersection of high and Woburn changing the water flow patterns. And if you come down high from the safe routes and you loop under, there's no storm water system on that part of the street. There's issues. But yeah, the private way thing, and we've had a bunch of meetings, and I would definitely, I'm constantly answering questions about private ways and referring people to the video recordings of these meetings. the owners of the private ways would have to pay to bring the private ways up to code, and then the city could accept them as public ways and maintain them. But until that's done, it can't be. Essentially, the abutters to the private way own the private way, and they are responsible for the infrastructure on the private way. And they would be responsible for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars of infrastructure upgrades.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And that's something I think that really, you know, Realtors selling property on those ways need to be clear that it's like you're not getting.
[Zac Bears]: So, yeah, yeah. So, you know, I'm going to go to Councilor Collins, Councilor Calhoun, Councilor, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Great, yeah, and I know, thank you, Councilor Collins, for taking some notes on our shared document. If you could submit that and refer it to the subcommittee, I'll just reference. We've had a few meetings about it over the last two years, so those recordings may be valuable. There's some information coming from there's some information on the public works website, some information on the police department website, because around the parking and traffic enforcement on private ways, and then certainly commissioner given director Blake are. are knowledgeable resources who could maybe, with a ton of lead, maybe we could take everything that's out there and kind of say, this is private ways in Medford. I would love to get to the kind of, I think, where you're going down the line of, what would it cost to fix this whole thing? And, you know, the commission were given a citizen, the hundreds of millions, probably mid hundreds of millions or more. So, and then the one option that we never talk about, because I don't think we would ever do it, but, you know, there's basically 3 things the city could pay to fix it. And then you're talking about kind of. In my view, a gross misallocation of general public funds for specific private benefit. No offense to the private way residents. the private way owners could do it themselves and then take it out of their hands. Apparently, also, the city could essentially eminent domain it and charge the abutters. So I, again, don't think that that's going to happen. Although when I thought about that, I did have the one question, which was, if you did that at scale, would it be significantly cheaper if the city were to versus it's like the people on the private way are doing it one by one versus you could hire a contractor to do dozens of them every year, would that actually affect the overall cost of the project in a significant way? But I don't know, and I'd probably not enough to do it, right? So, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think those are the big, big questions on the big things. But I think that's like $500 million question number four on our list.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, right. We're really exceeding 70s game show amounts these days. Great. Anything else on public works and facilities? Cool. Fun discussion. Last, we'll go to resident services and public engagement. And we have in this committee, Give me one second. It's a long document. Looking at areas of racial justice, disability, elder affairs, veterans affairs, communications, public engagement, elections, departments, diversity, equity, inclusion, council on aging, veteran services, city clerk, veteran community media, communications department, and looking at relevant city ordinances, Chapter 2, Article 3, Boards and Commissions. Chapter 2, Article 4, Officers and Employees. We have our major projects of a Multilingual Public Participation Resident Guide, Ordinances, Gender Equity Commission, Youth Commission, Welcoming City Ordinance, Data Equity, Open Data, Immigrants Commission, Language Access Policy or Ordinance, and Human Rights Commission Reform. And we have Oversight and Engagement, Review Relevant City Ordinances and Regulations. modernizing the city council communication strategy, which I believe was just on the agenda. This yesterday, meetings with underrepresented groups, increased public input via open surveys and forms, twice annual training with the DEI office. So I will at this point turn it over to Councilor Leming. Um, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just from my thinking, I think you could go to public engagement. I think that's great. I think Planning and permitting is also economic development, so it could go either way. And I think it's really kind of what's the, you know, what framework is, do you want to apply to the question, and what would you rather be, what kind of frame would you rather be considering it under? The city did, through ARPA, have a facades and revitalization grant program recently, so, but I think it was one-time funding, so. looking at that. There's some beautification committee was discussed as well at one point by this council, and I don't know where that went exactly, but those are some of the things that council are saying. And then I'd like to move us to a vote to refer this out.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Cool. Well, that's the review of the items.
[Zac Bears]: 25 city council interns, that's what I heard. All right. Yeah, exactly. Okay. We'll have more time to talk about this, but just we're at this end of the section. Is there a motion to refer this governing agenda to each of the committees? Motion by Councilor Callahan to refer the governing agenda to each of the committees. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, since we're on Zoom, please call the roll when you're ready.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, yes, I mean, affirmative another negative motion passes. Last thing we had was to talk about reviewing this very quickly, or how we want to review this. So, I see Councilor Collins's hand, so I'll go to Councilor Collins and then Councilor Galliano.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Come back, George. And no, George has mentioned to me he has some work stuff, so I really appreciate him being able to be here and be where he is.
[Zac Bears]: All right, so on the motion of, is there any further discussion after, we have Councilor Collins' motion that leadership will review this monthly and update it monthly, and then we will sit down in June, December, June and December of this term to review it in committee of the whole. Is there a second on Councilor Collins' motion? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Is there any further discussion on the governing agenda for this evening? Why don't we make this a motion to adjourn as well? All right, on the motion that the council will review, leadership will review monthly, committee of the whole is June, December, June, December, and we will adjourn as well by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 7 in the affirmative, 0 in the negative. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: second regular meeting Medford City Council January 23 2024 Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. Records, the records of the meeting of January 9th, 2024 were passed to Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng, how'd you find the records? I found them in order and I moved to approve. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve the records, seconded by? Second. Seconded by Councilor Collins. Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Reports of committees 23-467 offered by President Bears. Committee of the Whole report January 17, 2024 to follow. This is a committee of the whole we held last week on school committee compensation. There are items on the agenda tonight that were reported out of that meeting. Is there a motion to accept the report of the committee? on the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice-President Collins. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion passes. 24-015, offered by Councilor Tseng. Resolution to discuss modernizing the City Council Communications and Outreach Strategy. Be it resolved that the Committee on Resident Services and Public Engagement me to discuss modernizing the council's communications and outreach strategy, including, but not limited to, developing guidelines and action plans for social media and press releases. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to refer to the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favour? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 2.4-016, offered by Councilor Tseng. Be it so resolved that the Committee on Resident Services and Public Engagement meet to discuss recommendations for updating the City website. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion? on the motion of Councilor Tseng to refer to the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favour? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 24-017 offered by Councilor Scarpelli, with the goal of keeping Medford residents informed on the process, be it resolved that the Medford City Council meet with the Medford Legislative Delegation, with General Keefe of the National Guard, and with representatives from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities to discuss a temporary shelter proposed within the City of Medford. before I turn it over to Councilor Scarpelli. There was an update today from the city online from Communications Director Smriti and the mayor. The city has been informed by state officials that the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities will be opening its emergency overnight shelter in Medford in February. The state is working on a contract with the provider to assist with services on site, and at the insistence of Mayor Lungo-Koehn has signed a memorandum of understanding with the city, agreeing to several specific terms identified by the mayor. The first no more than 75 families, or roughly 250 people, will be housed at the site for short-term shelter only. Two, the duration of the stay will likely not exceed five days. Three, school-age children will not enroll in Medford public schools. At the urging of Mayor Lungo-Koehn, the state has agreed to hold a public information session prior to the opening of the shelter with the community to answer questions. and to give an overview of how the facility will operate. We put in a request for next week, but the state has not given us a date and time yet. So that is the public meeting update. I will go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Schapiro. I hear from Representative Donato, and then I hear from fellow councilors. Representative Donato. Press a button.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please. It's a joke.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Representative Donato. Yes, and I want to acknowledge we have received several communications from the mayor, including the memorandum of understanding was emailed out to the council. Some questions have been answered. Some further questions have been generated as the process has moved along. And it does seem that, at this point, the people who have the answers to those questions are from the state government. And the mayor is working to bring them here for a community meeting. But the date is not certain. At this point, that's kind of my just quick summary. I will go to councilors. I wasn't tracking hands, but if anyone has anything they want to say or any questions they want to put on the record, then we can go to the members of the public. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other comments or questions from Councilors? Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. And I just do want to note, I think it's good to ask questions, and Rep Tornado is here, and we'll also have the record of this meeting. very likely will have to direct these questions to the state officials at their public meetings. So we're gathering some feedback here, but we don't have the answers or the folks who do have the answers or are working on creating the answers are not here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Representative. I'm going to go to members of the public who have questions, unless there were other councillors. I'm going to go to members of the public. We have some folks on Zoom. We have some folks here. I'll start at the podium. Please give your name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Pursuant to the rules of the council, comments should be directed to me, whether it's Councilors or members of the public.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not done. You have about 30 seconds left to return to the rules.
[Zac Bears]: I asked you a question out loud here.
[Zac Bears]: You've presented your topic. You've had your five minutes. I want an answer. You don't get an answer, sir. I didn't get an answer. No, sir. I know my answer. We've heard public comment from me. You may sit down. Yes, of course it is. Yes, the great treason of loving. Sir, please sit down. Sir, please sit down. The great treason of loving thy neighbor is no treason at all. We'll go to Lorna Wilkerson. Lorna, I've marked you to unmute. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have about five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Any other residents like to speak? Any other comments from Councilors? Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're going to go to Zoom. Jacqueline.
[Zac Bears]: I said I don't believe we have the answers to that question.
[Zac Bears]: That's what the mayor's statement says. Okay. Councilor Lazzaro for a second, Councilor Lazzaro has a comment.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. So let's, I think we should just step back, and there's a few facts here. So number one, this is a private property. The state is making an agreement with this private property owner. So that's the arrangement here. The mayor has secured a bit of understanding, but this is an agreement between the state and a private property owner. The state is paying for this. State government is paying for this. And as councilors are set, the building will have to meet certain basic standards, such as the plumbing code. The issue here is that the more permanent shelters, such as empty hotels, motels, and other structures, have hit their maximum. And these are going to be temporary places for people to stay. I think a few weeks ago, if people were reading the news, they were using the empty conference rooms at the Department of Transportation headquarters to house people. So this is meant to be a better solution than using empty conference rooms to house people. And I think if folks are also watching the news, they would know that Governors and leaders of states on the border have decided to weaponize this issue and start shipping people to other states for political purposes. So that is another reason that we're seeing this influx where there may be other places that could certainly handle this, but the leaders have chosen to kind of try to go against federal immigration policy and best practices.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes. And the state has said that these will be families and also folks who are in these facilities have been processed legally through the immigration authorities at the federal level. Okay. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor. I'm going to let Jessica Taddeo
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I'm going to go to Eileen Lerner on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Eileen. Is there anyone else who hasn't spoken yet who would like to speak? All right, and I saw a couple people who had already spoken. I'll go, Mr. Merritt, if we could, you know.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I don't think we're going to solve federal immigration policy tonight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I mean, I just wanna say, I think we can also appreciate There's outliers, and then there's statistical averages. And outliers aren't part of statistical averages. And we're individual people. But on average, if we're talking about crime in the city, crime is down massively in the last 25 years in this community. And that's what the statistics that the police chief provides to us annually show. It doesn't mean that crime doesn't happen. It just means that the number of crimes is down. And on average, it's a much safer community than it was even maybe 10 years ago when someone was under your porch. five years ago. I'm going to go to Lorna Wilkerson. Ms. Wilkerson, you've already spoken once, so if you could try to keep the comments short and direct, and then we will move on the question as amended.
[Zac Bears]: Our understanding is that the state is signing a contract with this private property owner to rent the property for the purposes that the state would like to rent it for. The property owner pays taxes to the city.
[Zac Bears]: That is how private property owners have that right, yes.
[Zac Bears]: City Council cannot violate the Constitution and take private property without due process, and I don't think we want an eminent domain in this building. I don't think we have the money to do so.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by Councilor Scarpelli, to request a robocall to the neighbourhood once the date and time and location of the public meeting is scheduled. Is there any further comment? Is there a second on the amended motion? Seconded by Councilor Callaghan. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. We do have the election report. I know this went a little—could we maybe take that?
[Zac Bears]: Motion by Councilor Collins to suspend the rules to take paper 23-474, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favour? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 2023 Municipal Election Process Errors and Accountability Report, and I believe the longer motion I don't have in front of me right now, but this was requesting both a written report and that the Elections Manager and Elections Commission join us at this meeting to discuss the 2023 election, what issues and errors were identified, and what process improvements will be made going forward to address them. And I will turn this over to Manager Ripley, Elections Manager Ripley.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions or comments from members of the council regarding the after action report? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Chancellor Schrapp, I think you, just to clarify, you wanted a motion that we, me and the Governance Committee, we continue to continue to review the updates and reforms listed in this report and check in on them in advance of the March election and afterwards. Yeah. Meet with the Elections Commission.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I got emotional and governance committee meet with commission and staff to check in and make sure that their needs are met relative to the, yep, got it. Okay, Councilor Callahan, Councilor Vice President Collins, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I will look for the original motion language. If you have anything else you want to say, I can go to Vice President Collins and get back to you with the Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. be it further resolved that the report include specific responses to, one, the misprinting of ballots, two, the inaccurate instruction sheets provided to voters with mail ballots, three, trainings that provided incorrect information to poll wardens and workers regarding voters bringing materials to assist them in the voting booth, and four, persistent issues with the counting of ballots in a timely manner and release of the incomplete, unofficial results to the public, be it further resolved that the mayor provide the council with a supplemental appropriation request, to restore full-time staffing levels in the Elections Department. That was joined with Councilor Scarpelli's paper, be it resolved that the election coordinator report back to the City Council with a detailed report and findings detailing the municipal election, which includes, but is not limited to, absentee ballots, polling rules and regulations, complaints, and malfunctions. And then that was amended by Councilor Scarpelli, offering a member requesting that the election manager and election commission come before the Council to explain in detail what happened during the election. Thank you for being here. Councilor Tseng offered an amendment that any report comes out of this that should include reference to the funding problems and full-time staffing issues in the elections office. And Councilor Schaffer also requested that the council send a letter to the Secretary of State's office asking them to look into the process. So that was the original, that was the two motions joined and amended from our November 14th, 2023 council meeting. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Any further comments from Councilors?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Stroud. Was that a motion? Was there a motion in there? You had the previous one. Was there a further motion? Okay. Attendance?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I think if we look at the governance committee, this is on there already as well for the next several months for us to take a look at. I have some questions, but I will wait since we've heard from everyone else. I will go to you guys since my colleagues have had a chance to speak. If you have anything you'd like to say this time or any questions you'd like to answer.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Henry. And Chairman Loren, I appreciate it. Thank you, Manager. Thank you, Member DiBenedetto, for being here. You have one more thing?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will come back. to my comments about the report, just specifically on the call to election and the approval of polling places, if you could share. My understanding is that we do have to approve those as the council pursuant to state law, even with the transition from the registrar system to the elections commission system. If that is not true, if you could send me the KP law opinion that says that, just so we have that on record. One quick question on this. Did you ask about around Breed Memorial Hall at the corner of Winthrop and Boston Avenue as a possibility? It's a tough stone building.
[Zac Bears]: And Tufts wouldn't make the Breed Hall available? Not enough parking.
[Zac Bears]: Understood. Yeah, totally. And the only reason I ask this question is the first time we've been before us. So, you know, just want to make sure we get, and I think we all agree in a timely manner, and you mentioned the time clock on this one, calls to election or notification, whatever the legal opinion is that what this council's action needs to be, of course, we will do that. But we do want to get it in a way where we can ask the questions and just ask the question. I know you guys work hard. I'm sure you've vetted it all out. And my guess is we'll be able to go back to Walkley when the construction is complete. Which may take years. In a couple of years, yeah. Until further notice. Okay. All right, back to some of the report, and I hear there's the motion to continue having detailed discussions to really get into the nitty gritty of it. I will say, I think the point of Councilor Callaghan of saying, you know, it's one thing to have the after action report. It sounds like this was something you were going to do no matter what that was the plan for the election. I think we requested something a little bit on top of that, which is kind of. a call and response, you know, if there was something that was identified as an issue, name what the issue was, you know, kind of what your office, how you interpreted the issue, what your definition of it was, and then what your response was. And I think that would have helped new councillors, an average resident who may not have all the context, to better understand, okay, this event happened, here's what we're doing now to make sure this event doesn't happen again. And so that's just what I want to put out there. And I appreciate in the communications privately and tonight that we've had open and honest and direct. This is how we're feeling. Henry, very clear about that. I don't think this is about friends and not friends anymore or anything personal. We are all friends. I think we're all friends of elections in different ways as well, having participated in them, all of us, in many different ways, including this last one. So, but I think that spirit of radical candor is the most, maybe in your office, is the most, needs to be the most radically honest of any office, because it is the office that allows them from which flows all of the rest of us to do the work that we do and the legitimacy of our city government, right? And it's when these, you know, minor mistakes or irregularities or issues or things that we want to say, when you have a couple of them build up, then you have people calling and threatening. And I'm sure you've experienced that. And then you have people calling illegitimacy on the whole process and calling for recounts when recounts may not be necessary given the margins and the races, right? So it's being so open as to say, even though it is probably counter to every instinct that we may have, We made a mistake being so open, like not just we made a mistake, but we made this mistake at 7.41 p.m. and 13 seconds. And here were the three people involved. And then here's the process that we're putting in, because if we have that radical candor, if we have that deep transparency, it undermines bad faith arguments. that are made in that longer run. And I think we all agree on that, but I just think that's why we're taking it so seriously. And I think the other piece of taking it so seriously is we moved to this new system recently, and it's different than it was before. So there are three things, kind of three things in the report I just want to lift up, and it sounds like we'll have further discussions on it, but the first one is the staffing and resources question. And I read here, you know, one big challenge was not having enough regular staff members to assist with the amount of work when prepping for the election. The Election Commission is working to address this by hiring additional pre-election team members and working with HR to hire the open part-time election staff position. I think that is, you know, that's an answer to the question of staffing and resources, but I also think it's an answer that we have heard before. And I understand that your office doesn't set the budget or make appropriations, but I think, you know, we've had this discussion. We had this discussion November 14th. We've had this discussion in private. there used to be several more full time staff working on elections in the city than there are now is the replacement of those staff members with temporary, you know, pre election team members. Is that sufficient? Is this part time position which because of its structure has gone unfilled for a year? Is that sufficient? I think this council would say This answer is we can't have the same answer to the question when this was the answer last time and it didn't produce the results intended. So how can we sit down as well with you guys and with the mayor's team to say, OK, how can we build something where there's a full time position where we can get it filled? Or and maybe it's not a full time that it's always in the elections office. I know for a fact that there are offices around this. building who would appreciate a little bit of extra support at different times of the year, and maybe half of the year that's in your office, right? So kind of trying to think through those unique solutions. So I'm hoping that's somewhere we can go there. The second piece for me, I know I discuss this often, was the training. And Henry mentioned it, you mentioned in the report, there's need for more training, there's need to update the training. Pursuant to our issue, you know, the issue that we raised on election day around the checklists being brought into the polls. I see that is addressed here in here, so I appreciate that. I think maybe one other thing to put in the training is just make sure that all of the election workers are reading the Voter Bill of Rights that the Secretary of State's office puts out. I think that's a valuable piece of something that has already been created separately that can answer some of those training questions, but I think it To me, it's like, hey, look at this. This is a list of what voters are allowed to do and not do. It protects them. It protects you. And that's just a level of understanding. The third thing for me is back to the tabulation of unofficial results. And I really think this is part of that radical candor is setting fair expectations. both for you and for everyone else in the process. If a letter went out that said these things will be posted by 8.30, that's now an expectation that's been set. And if that expectation goes unfulfilled, then people are going to say that expectation went unfulfilled. So I think being really clear, and I see in here, we're going to add this cross-check process. I have a question about that in a second. We are, you know, we're going to post the tabulator tapes. I have a quick question about that. I mean, it seems like there's more going into this than that has happened in November 23. There was also the partial release in November 22 that was corrected. So it's it is a persistent issue. But I think the communications from the office. maybe pulling back on over promising. I don't, sometimes I have the problem of sitting in this chair and over promising is something that I would just suggest and put out there because I think that's where, you know, it adds another ticker, another check on that list. And now if we have one issue with the ballot and an issue with the observer and an issue with the voter checklist, and then you have an issue with the expectation being set that results should be available at a certain time, then you can have people who are not acting in good faith take that list of things and turn it into a whole hullabaloo, which is what we experienced. I have two specific questions and then one further thing I want to get into. In terms of the central tabulation facility, we'll post the tabulator tapes in the same method as the individual precincts. Does that mean that there would be 16 tapes at central tab, or one tape would be posted at central tab?
[Zac Bears]: OK, it would not be separate tapes. And I just think, you know, same method as the individual precincts, I might be expecting a thin ticker. It's just those kinds of things. I just want to be setting that expectation, clearly.
[Zac Bears]: So you would have essentially 16 Ticker strips. 18, sorry, because we have the two A's now. And then you would have one from the central tabulate, and all of the precincts would be combined on that one?
[Zac Bears]: You can see them individually, but if you want a sheet of paper. That's correct. Okay. And I think that's the kind of thing, you know, just setting that expectation. This is what you should be seeing when it's all over. The other piece that it sounds like, and this was going to be kind of my suggestion, it sounds like maybe you've already gone down this road, and I understand that you've been talking about it. is that cross-check, right? Like to me, if you have the memory cards and you have the tapes, you know, and maybe it's not as easy for the central tab piece of this, and maybe that's where some of this issue is coming in. But you could essentially have a spreadsheet pre-made that is getting populated by whatever's coming out of the memory cards, VRIS or whatever that system is, or the LHS system. And then you could take the tapes and manually enter those into a spreadsheet. And then you'd have two independent sets of two sheets with two sets of information. Do the tapes match what came out of the machine? if the answer's, is that the cross-check kind of we're talking about?
[Zac Bears]: Heard. Thank you and I appreciate that.
[Zac Bears]: Right, and that was really valuable to have.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And then I think, you know, so that makes sense in terms of getting them out. I think just in terms of the other piece of it, which is making sure machines aren't zeroed out early and making sure machines are zeroed out before the day starts, because that seems to have been how we got to the point of the recount and the disparities and discrepancies between some precincts were undercount, some precincts were overcount. You know, in some sense, I'm glad we did the recount because I got a hundred more votes, but you know, it's, it's, it should never, never, ever, you know, that, that, that is the other piece of this question that really, I think we need to flesh out. And I think there's some in here procedurally making sure that that doesn't happen, but that's where that other piece of error can happen. And then, and then, you know, that's that little tally list where people can then take that and use it for, for other, say other things about it or be honest and say, I'm concerned there's six things. I'd like to see the recount because it, you know, it didn't change who was elected, but it changed the results of the election in a significant way. 100 votes is not insignificant. Yes, Manager Ripley, I have one last thing when you're done.
[Zac Bears]: Got it, and I appreciate that. And I appreciate the discussion. I don't want to end on a little bit of a down note, but I think it really, and to me it's not so much I really hope that the mayor and the chief of staff are listening here when we talk about the need for additional staffing and resources for the department. came to my attention this evening, people noticed we were talking about the election, that a communication went out, I'm not sure if it was with the census or not, that says offices that are on the November 2024 ballot and offices that aren't on the November 2024 ballot. And it says offices items not on the November 2024 ballot, state senator and state representative. And those are on the November 2024 ballot. And it also has the districts are swapped, right? It has the Senate district as representative, the representative district as Senate district. It's not the end of the world, but it's not the level of accurate information that we want to be putting out there at all times to the process. And when we have four elections in a year, and then a recount on top of it, and then we're sorting through everything in the basement, and we have the new commission from the registrar, it's like, I understand the circumstances that get us to a place where an error like that happens. I understand where the circumstances get us to a place where some of the errors happened in November. And I understand that there's a really good faith attempt here to really try to correct them. But I don't think it's fair to put up on you guys to fix everything, to say you have what you have, fix everything. And so that's my call. I may be stepping a little bit outside the boundaries of the role of the chair tonight with this discussion. Obviously, I'm passionate about it and I've looked into it. But I really, really think we need to, as part of the sit down, hear more of the details about the checks and processes we're going to put in place. I hear that in good faith. But the level of resources and staff support that is needed to effectively do the work of your office, and that we had prior to the transition from this model to this new model, it isn't in place, and there's things that slip. And now the checklist for this election, we're not at six, but now we're at one. And that's just where, again, I don't, I think that to get the same answer back, and I understand that you can't appropriate new funds, but to get the same answer back, we're gonna try to hire for this position we haven't been able to hire for for a year, and we're gonna try to get more people onto the pre-election team. I don't think that's a sufficient answer. So I appreciate you hearing me say that. I know maybe agree or disagree or can't agree or can't disagree the powers that be hear that. And I hope that at least in private, they can hear it from everyone involved.
[Zac Bears]: OK. That's good to hear. Any further comments from Councilors? And I appreciate your deference to me on this topic. Councilor, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I know. I know, I did.
[Zac Bears]: No, but, you know, it's like, oh, all hands on deck, and suddenly my hands are not allowed. I think we get something. Ah, the ultimate wisdom.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I am from Ward Committee and I'm pretty sure that means I think that was the exact situation, right? It's like, oh, the very uncontested Ward Committee. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further questions, comments from councillors? Anything you guys want to add or any comments from members of the public in the room or on Zoom? You can raise your hand if you're on Zoom or stand if you're here in person. All right, seeing none, thank you very much. On the motion to refer this report to the Governance Committee to meet with Commission and staff and discuss, check in on any needs and discuss how the Council can be supportive to make sure that these issues are addressed and that resources are provided to the Elections Commission, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? All opposed? Motion passes, thank you very much. Is there a motion to revert to the regular order of business? All in favor of the motion of Councilor Tseng, to revert to the regular order of business, seconded by? Second. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Aye. Aye, opposed? Motion passes. 24-018. President Pierce? Yes, Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: on 24-018 by Councilor Collins is withdrawn. Councilor, 24-019 offered by Councilor Tseng. Give me a second here. Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Medford, pursuant to Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 71, Section 52, that the following rates of compensation be set for members of the Medford School Committee effective on July 1, 2024, school committee member from $12,000 to $17,052.80. School Committee Vice Chair from 12,600 to 17,900. School Committee Secretary from 14,400 to 19,075. School Committee Chairperson from 13,200 to 18,750. Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Medford pursuant to Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 71, Section 52, that the following rates of compensation be set for members of the Medford School Committee effective of July 1, 2025. School committee member from $17,052.80 to $22,105.60. School committee vice chair from $17,900 to $23,200. School Committee Secretary from $19,075 to $23,750. School Committee Chairperson from $18,750 to $24,300. Fiscal impact in fiscal 2025 is $35,736.20. Fiscal impact into fiscal year 2026 is $71,472.40. Councilor Tseng. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Just before we continue, I do want to note that this has been reviewed for form and the motions are worded properly. Pursuant to General Law, Chapter 71, Section 52, this requires a majority vote. and is not an ordinance and will be, does not require three readings. Mr. President. Councilor Starkley, then Councilor Callahan, then Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callaghan. Just to summarize, I think that was a motion to refer to the Governance Committee a number of democracy reforms. If you have that in typed form, if you could send that to myself and to the clerk, that would be great. Is there a second on that motion? Second. Seconded by Councilor Leming. And I will go now to Councilor Collins. And by the way, that motion is a B paper, which means it's a separate paper that will be referred out. It will get a new paper number. And we'll go to the committee. Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Any other comments from members of the Council? All right, then I will give my comment just shortly, which is I think that it is a long overdue action, and while it does not address all of my concerns or meet all of my principles, sometimes that is what a compromise looks like. I also want to add We're voting on this, and then it's back to where we were, which is the Council may deign at any point to maybe consider at some point looking at this. Yes, we have some motions to talk about it. Yes, we have some motions this or that. But that's what we're voting on. We're voting on a half measure to get some of the way towards a further goal. It leaves it right in the hands of the council in 20 years to let this go for 20 years and never address it again. And then we're there again, but that's where we are. So this will be put to rest other than the fact that we will have some discussions around the classification and compensation study, some discussions around the city charter. Maybe there'll be some action that comes out of that, but this is what it is. So there'll be, if this is approved, raises this year in July 1 fiscal year 25 and fiscal year 26 to address 23 years of no change in compensation. Given no further comment from members of the council, we'll go to members of the public. You can come to the podium and give your name and address for the record. You can also raise your hand on Zoom. We will alternate between the podium and Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no hands on Zoom, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Please just direct your comments to the chair. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I know, but just direct it to me. Through the chair to Councilor Tseng. Pardon me? Through the chair to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, former Councilor Penta. Just to clarify, there was a list of things in Councilor Callaghan's motion around a variety of pro-democracy reforms. Quite frankly, even though there was a suggested date of a report, we may not have the answers to all of those questions by that time. So I would not personally, I'm going to vote for that B paper, but to me, it is not to say there will be more. I think this is gonna be the swing of the bat for a while on this question, probably for years.
[Zac Bears]: Undocumented immigrants to vote. Did you say that? No.
[Zac Bears]: Non-citizens. Non-citizens. Non-citizens. So documented non-citizens. Green card holders and the like, I think. People who have green cards.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We have two folks on Zoom. I will go to M. Paige Lieberman. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Matthew. Yes, I did work with counsel and the way that the law works, it specifically has to raise the salary from one amount to another amount. So you could not say it should go from 12,000 to this and then thus shall go up with an inflationary measure or some sort of other measure. It has to be from one amount to another amount. The only way to do what you're talking about would be to put it in the charter in some way. But under the chapter, 71, section 40, sorry, 52. And I keep misplacing that. It must go from one number to another number, so you can't peg it to something such as inflation or another metric, a COLA. I'm going to go to Ricky on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: David Scormio at the podium. Mr. Navarre, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Navarre. On the, any further comments? I'm seeing none. If I can. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor, Vice President Collins. Mr. President, if we could be brief.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Unless, yes, unless there's a motion to end the debate and move the question. Sounds like we have one last person.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. The clerk has reminded me that a B paper would retain the same paper number, so if you do not mind, Councilor Callaghan, if we could adjust your motion to refer a new paper with a new paper number to the Governance Committee containing the motion that you sent.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you. And the second on that was Councilor Leming, I believe. So, on that motion to refer a paper regarding several pro-democracy reforms to the Governance Committee for further consideration, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. On the main motion by Councilor Tseng to approve the paper 24-019 pursuant to General Law, Chapter 71, Section 52. It was motion by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, two in the negative, the motion passes. Call for participation. Is there anyone who would like to participate further? We've had extensive public participation, but if there's public participation on a topic we have not otherwise discussed, you may come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom now. Seeing none, is there any unfinished business that any Councilor would like to address, or is there a motion to adjourn?
[Zac Bears]: Oh, geez, you're right. I totally skipped. I'm so sorry, Councilor Scarpelli. No, that's totally my bad. Thank you. My apologies. I messed up the order there. 24-020, resolution on city council and school committee blended salary sponsored by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the council lower its own rate of pay to a blended salary, that is the difference between the pay rate of the city council and the school committee, then follow the schedule proposed by Councilor Tseng for increases in 2024 and 2025. I had the opportunity to review this and look at the law, whereas the school committee salaries are subject to Chapter 71, Section 52. Salaries for the Mayor and the City Council or otherwise Board of Alders, etc., are subject to Chapter 39, Section 6A, which says that the Mayor and members of the City Council shall receive for their services such salary as the City Council shall by ordinance determine. No increase or reduction in such salaries shall take effect during the year in which an increase or reduction is voted, as is noted by Councilor Callaghan's research. That is very different from the law around school committees, which explains why various town and city charters go to pains to try to align those two laws. So under Chapter 39, Section 6a, I'm going to rule this paper out of order. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: You got it. Medford city council committee of the whole meeting notice Wednesday, January 17th, 2024 at 6 p.m. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole on Wednesday, January 17th, 2024 at 6 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chamber on the second floor of Medford City Hall and via Zoom. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss compensation for the Medford School Committee, paper 23-467. For further information, aids, and accommodations, please contact the city clerk at 781-393-2425. Sincerely yours, Isaac B. Zach Bears, Council President. Thank you all for being here today. We are here, as I just said, to discuss paper 23-467, a proposal from the prior council by former Council President Morell regarding the compensation of the school committee. Just a few things before we start. Number one, Councilor Lazzaro is attending remotely tonight due to illness. Hope you feel better, Councilor Lazzaro. Thank you for being here. That means that all votes will be roll call votes. Second, just to go quickly through, the proposal by President Morell, as amended by President Morell and Councilor Knight on December 12th, is before us tonight. Short summary is the initial proposal folks have read was to place the school committee pay at 29,359.80 cents, the chair at 32,550, vice chair at 30,640, and secretary at 31,760. amendments were offered to strike several clauses regarding the composition of the Menford School Committee and City Council. Amendment was offered to phase in these adjustments over time, and Councilor Knight offered a number of amendments, including questions regarding state law, Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 44, Section 33, 71, Section 53, 71, 52, and 4433A. I do have legal opinion from of the city's outside legal counsel, KP Law, which I can read into the record. In my opinion, if there's available funding in the Medford School Department budget for this current fiscal year to pay for an improved increase in school committee compensation, then there does not need to be a supplemental appropriation request, given that the school department's fiscal year budget is a bottom line budget. Approval of the increase would be required pursuant to general law chapter 71, section 52, given the requirements set forth in the statute as outlined below. In my opinion, general laws chapter 71, section 52 govern this request, which requires generally a majority vote of the city council to change compensation for school committee members. In my further opinion, in reviewing the proposal, the city council may inquire from the school department regarding funds in the fiscal year 24 budget, if any increases in approved and effective for this current fiscal year. If a supplemental appropriation is required, the increase would be subject to applicable municipal finance principles, including pursuant to General Law, Chapter 44, Section 33A. If the City Council approves an increase to school committee compensation pursuant to General Law, Chapter 71, Section 52, to go into effect beginning July 1, 2024 for fiscal year 2025, in my opinion, such amounts would be incorporated into the bottom line budget request for fiscal year 2025 for review by the City Council, indeed under state law, And according to Desi guidance, the following provisions apply to school budgets that outlines the standard process for the setting of the budget every year. Please let me know if there are further questions. Thank you. And in a sense, essentially that addresses the questions regarding whether this is subject to the provision of a two thirds vote of the council being required. essentially, if a supplemental appropriation required in this were to go into effect in the middle of a fiscal year, then the answer would be yes. If this were to go into effect on the start of a new fiscal year, then a simple majority is required under Chapter 71, Section 52. And so with that, and with the amendments to the questions, I will turn it over to my fellow councilors for comment and discussion. And I see Councilor Collins and then Councilor Tseng. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Anything else, Councilor Tseng? Any councillors like to speak at this time? Councilor Callahan?
[Zac Bears]: At this point, councillors can either make statements or they can make motions to amend the paper. Councilor Scarpelli, then Councilor Leming. I think I saw your hand, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Did I have Councilor Leming or is it Councilor Tseng? Councilor Leming and Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilor Leming. I'm going to go to Councilor Tseng, Councilor Lazzaro, Vice President Collins. Councilor Tseng. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Answer saying Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: I'll go to Councilor Scrivelly, but if we could keep it short.
[Zac Bears]: We don't all know everything. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: It wasn't a formal motion.
[Zac Bears]: Is that a formal motion? There's been a lot of conversation. Is that a motion? You've just made a motion. Is there a second to that motion? So, conversation's over. No, there's plenty of time for more motions, and we'll take them in the order that they were made, and then we'll have public participation. Is there a second on the motion? I'll second. There's a second from Councilor Tseng. I will go to Councilor Callahan, then Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan, just if you could, if you could direct your comments to me and make sure you're speaking into it. You're fine. Yes, I apologize.
[Zac Bears]: You know, you're good, and I made a lot of mistakes. Not that it was a mistake, but I was corrected many times by Councilor Tarapelli. Wonderful.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Over those years. Sorry, it would go up, but what would be the effective date?
[Zac Bears]: There's a motion from Councilor Tseng to increase school committee pay based on the pay scale we discussed be around 17,000 July 1 2024 and 22,000 July 1 2025. Is there a second on that motion, second, second Councilor Leming. there was a bunch of conversation, and I'm gonna take it in order, and I'm gonna go to Councilor Collins first, and then I'll go to Councilor Callahan, and then maybe Councilor Scarpelli, or if there are others. There was a bunch of conversation before formal motions were made to make motions, and I wanna take the time to ensure that all motions are before us, before we go to public participation. So just if you had said something that you would like to be a formal motion, raise your hand and I will call on you. We'll start with Councilor Collins. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to refer a paper to the Governance Committee for consideration during charter review, and I'll paraphrase, I think it's to create a mechanism for review of compensation of elected officials. We'll get the specific language and we'll read back all language before final motions and votes. Is there a second on that motion? Second. Second, Councilor Tseng. I'll go to Councilor Callahan and then Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we're going to have to go back and get specific numeric and legal language when they're to be finally considered. But I think we can put the substance on the table. We can do the detail work after we've had more discussion and participation. Councilor Scarpelli, your motions?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no, and that's where we're going to get the specific language. I do not care. What, pursuant to the legal opinion, The school committee cannot vote to adjust its compensation. Only the council can vote to adjust its compensation. There are other laws governing the council, like we could not vote our own compensation in the term in which we're elected. There's different laws that govern our compensation. This would not tie it into the contract. There would be specific numbers effective on specific dates. And once those were in effect, let's say that the proposal for an increase in 2024 and 2025, there would have to be a new vote after 2025 from the council pursuant to this general law.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Give me one second. Let me, I think it's a motion. for the council to lower its own rate of pay to the school committee rate and then increase that rate of pay based on the motion by Councilor Tseng which is based on the percentage increase for the MTA contract from fiscal 2000 to fiscal 25. That's it. All right. Is there a second on that motion?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, Councilor Lazzaro, what's the question?
[Zac Bears]: Could you repeat that, sorry?
[Zac Bears]: For Councilor Scarpelli's resolution? Yes. Um, best that I can tell it would be blended rate that it's equitable for both parties. It would be to go down to 12,000 and then go up to no, no. It was 17 and then to 22.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. It sounds like it would be that we would all be around 20,000 and then it would go up at least to the 22,000 over the next two years.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, I couldn't hear that.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, buddy. I'm more concerned that I don't know that we can legally take that vote, and I don't have the legal authority on it. Where's Adam? He appears from his file cabinet. All right, so there are four motions on the floor. They've all been seconded. There's a motion from Councilor Collins to use the MTA pay scale the COLAs over the last 25 fiscal years to increase school committee pay on July 1, 2024 and July 1, 2025, and then to also increase to equal pay to the current council salary July 1, 2026 and July 1, 2027, seconded by Councilor Tseng. There's a motion by Councilor Tseng to increase using the COLAs of the MTA contracts on July 1, 2024 and July 1, 2025, There's a motion from Councilor Collins to refer a paper to the Governance Committee for consideration during charter review to create a mechanism for regular automatic review and adjustment of the compensation of all elected officials. And there's a motion from Councilor Scarpelli for the council to lower its own rate of pay to the school committee to lower to even out the rate of pay between the council and the school committee take the total amount divided by the number of people serving and then to increase it based on the COLA schedule of the MTA contracts from fiscal 2000 to fiscal 2025. I believe those are the four motions on the floor. at this time, unless there are further comments by members of the Council, I'll open the floor to public participation. Again, as we did last time, please, you can come up to the podium, make a line here, you can raise your hand on Zoom. I would ask that everyone please try to respect a three-minute time frame so that we can hear from everybody. And please keep your comments directed to the topic at hand and not make them personal. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can hear you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Patricia Cherry on Zoom. I'll unmute you. If you could give name and address for the record, please. Patricia, are you there? All right, I'll go to Tracy on Zoom. Tracy, if you could give your name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Tracy. I'm going to go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Patricia Cherry on Zoom. I'd also like to back up for it. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Under the proposals that have been proposed going to an effect? Yes, July 1 2024. I mean, it's it's money that is appropriated by the city budget. So it could go to any rated amount.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, again, Patricia, just I have a point of clarification that we do not negotiate contracts. We don't set the appropriation of any item school budget as a city council, except for this one item. This is the only item that is set by the city council.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Patricia. I'm seeing no more hands raised on Zoom. I will go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: been following the rules, are there rules?
[Zac Bears]: They filed as separate motions. We'll take them in order, and we'll read the full language. We haven't taken votes on the motions. I made my choices chair that I wanted to hear from the public before we.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no, they're separate motions. I don't know. There may be further amendments to the motions, but we'll take them in the order that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We do now have some hands on zoom. I'm going to go to Paul Garrity on zoom and then I'll come back to the podium. Paul, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Paul. I do not know that we have the authority to implement that. Certainly under this process, I don't know if the charter process would be different. Go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: In what sense? I receive a weekly paycheck.
[Zac Bears]: The school committee? We're W-2 employees at the city of the school districts.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Gina Koffler on Zoom, and then I'll come back to Anna for you. Gina, you're gonna have to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Gina. Can I have your name and address for the record, please?
[Zac Bears]: Seeing no other hands raised on Zoom, I will go to the podium.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: And an address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? Anyone on public participation, anyone on Zoom? that. If I may, Councilor Tseng just before, and this will be pretty much all I have to say, and then I'll try to go through the motions, and I did also try to given the feedback of the audience tried to put these proposals into a graphical representation, which I'll show, which should make it easier for us to understand and compare them. I appreciate everything that's been said. I mean, we're going through the deliberative process. Something that I said in December was that it was an initial proposal that would be considered and further vetted by the council, which we're doing this evening and may continue. We'll see what happens with the motions that pass. I just wanna say very simply that I do not think that any union or bargaining unit in the city would go for 23 years without a compensation increase. I don't think anyone would accept that, right? Is there anyone who would say that's, you know, we'll go for 23 years and then after 23 years we'll come back and we'll ask for 2%. So, excuse me? All right, thank you, thank you. I'm gonna continue now. So as I was saying, I don't think there's, Mr. McGilvery, if you could just let me speak. I don't think there's anyone in this community who would accept that. Any union leader, any union member who would say, oh, after 23 years, we'll start at two, we'll start 2% for the next four years. So it's a false equivalence to compare, oh, let's address 23 years of no adjustment to compensation and say, oh, we're starting down to 23 years, we'll let that go. Zeroes for 23 years, we'll start 2% now. No one would accept that. So it's a false equivalence to say that we would. And that's the only thing I'm gonna say to this. There's something that has happened for 25 years. For whatever reason, the council here for 23 years, sorry, never chose to take action on this. If a mayor held out on a union for 23 years or a school committee held out on a contract for 23 years, I mean, we all know that would never happen. right, the union would take action to stop that from happening. So I just want to put that out there. It's just a false equivalency. And that's the one piece of the discussion tonight that that stuck with me and kind of I didn't feel was a fair representation of the facts. But beyond that, I appreciate the discussion from everyone tonight. I appreciate the further proposals, I think, as the motions have been made to look at longer times of phase in and lesser amounts. And we'll see those motions are considered going forward. And I will go now to the podium, Mr. Mayor.
[Zac Bears]: Well, we're not going to give ourselves a pay raise.
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. McGilvery. I certainly would not negotiate the way that previous contract negotiations were negotiated.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lemme. There is one more hand on Zoom. I just saw a raise. I will go to Brianna Martinetti on Zoom. You should be unmuted. Name and address for the record, please. And if not, I'll press the button again. It's going to give you a pop-up. We still can't hear you. Let me try that again. I'm going to press a button, and it should pop up and ask you to unmute. I can't actually make it unmute you, and I apologize for that. And maybe it's on the phone. It should be kind of a dialog box with a blue button in it. I see you looking for it. I'm really sorry. If I could just unmute you, I would, but it doesn't let me.
[Zac Bears]: Uh, sure.
[Zac Bears]: But thank you. Thank you, Councilor Skowale. Do you wanna do that in the form of a motion or? No. Okay. Here, let's try this one. I'm gonna ask you to unmute again. There we go. Is it working now? Can you address for the record, please?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other comments from members of the public? Seeing none, I'm going to review the motions as I have them. I did try to do some of the math here. Um There's a motion from Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng to report the following out of committee. Be it resolved that the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 7152, set the following rates of compensation effective July 1, 2024. School committee member $17,052.80, school committee vice chair $17,900, school committee secretary $19,075, school committee chair $18,750. be it resolved that the Council, pursuant to General Laws, Chapter 71, Section 52, set the following rates for July 1, 2025. School committee member, 22,105.60. I will show a chart in a minute, by the way, I know this is a lot of numbers. School committee vice chair, 23,200. School committee secretary, 23,750. School committee chair, 24,300. be resolved by the City Council that effective July 1 26 school committee members salary 25,732 70 26,920 for the vice chair, 27,775 for the secretary, 28 4 25 for the chair and then July 1 2027 effective 29 3 59 84 school committee member. 30,640 for the Vice Chair, 31,760 for the Secretary, and 32,550 for the Chair. There was a second motion by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Leming, that would just have incorporated the first two of those, the raises for effective July 1, 2024 and July 1, 2025. there was a motion to refer the following to the Governance Committee, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the Governance Committee consider during charter review the inclusion of a mechanism within the updated city charter to trigger automatic COLA increases and or compensation review for all elected positions at regular intervals. And then there was a motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro to report out of committee the following resolution, be it resolved that the Council lower its own rate of pay to the equivalent amount to to the amount, how do we phrase this, George? It was to bring the two together? To a blended salary, that is the difference between, yeah. Equal pay. Difference. It just doesn't matter, Zach. Well, I want to get it right. No, I appreciate it. I appreciate it. And then to follow the schedule proposed by Councilor Saint for increases in 2024 and 2025. I tried to put this up here. If there's a dispute by the people who made the motion, please let me know. But this is the difference between the proposals. How is that showing up? So the current rates effective, it's currently effective 12,000, 13,200, 14,400, 12,600. The initial proposal that was proposed on December 12th would have, on January 1, 2024, increased the rates to 29,359.80, 3,000 would increase to these numbers. The proposal by Councilor Tseng would, on July 1, 2024, increase the amounts to this. On July 1, 2025, increase the amounts to this. And then the proposal by Councilor Collins has the same for the first two years with a further increase July 1, 2026 and July 1, 2027. So that's the difference between the current amount, the initial proposal and the two proposals on the floor from Councilor Tseng and Councilor Collins. And if I did the math wrong, please Let me know. All right, is there any discussion on the motions? Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Any further discussion? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I don't have those contracts in front of me.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, seeing no further discussion on the motion to report out of committee to the regular meeting agenda, Councilor Collins' motion, which is the four-year phase-in, with the first two years being based on the COLA changes for the MTA contract, and the second two bringing it to parity with the Council. seconded by Councilor Sagan. This is to refer to the regular meeting. The process from here on out, items will be, go to the regular meeting agenda. The final votes will happen on the regular meeting agenda. So we're just reporting items out of committee. If multiple items are reported out, multiple items will be considered on the regular meeting agenda. Since these are separate motions, they'll be considered separately. So this is not the final vote. This is just a vote to report items out of committee to our regular meeting agenda. So on the motion, Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, this is the first motion. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: This is to move this to the regular meeting. The final vote will be taken at the regular meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion is referred to the regular meeting. On the second motion by Councilor Tseng, which would be the first, the July 1, 2024 and July 1, 2025, based on the contracts for the MTA from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2023. And again, this is a report out of committee to be placed on the regular meeting agenda. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. The affirmative one of the negative the motion passes and it is referred to the regular meeting. On the third motion to refer to the Governance Committee the following resolution, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the Governance Committee consider, during charter review, the inclusion of a mechanism within the updated city charter to trigger automatic COLA increases and or compensation review for all elected positions at regular intervals, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 6 in the affirmative, 1 in the negative. The motion is referred to the Governance Committee. On the fourth motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Scarpelli, I assume this is to report out of committee the following resolution, be it resolved that the council lower its own rate of pay to a blended salary, that is the difference between the rate of the city council and the school committee, and then follow the schedule proposed by Councilor Tseng for increases in 2024 and 2025. And that, again, is seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Did I get it right?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: 4 in the affirmative, 3 in the negative. The motion passes. I will say I may rule this out of order pending legal concerns, but it is on the affirmative. I don't know if it's legal. Is there any further discussion on the paper before us or any other further comments to be made? All right, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to adjourn, seconded by?
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: I, Isaac B. Zach Bares, do solemnly affirm that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as President of the Medford City Council, according to the best of my ability. and understanding agreeable to the rules and regulations of the Constitution, the laws of this Commonwealth, and the ordinances of the City of Medford. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you to my colleagues. Councilor Scarpelli, I am watching HBO's Rome right now. I do hope that the spirit of congeniality can continue, because I think it is good for all of us to be able to disagree agreeably and enjoy each other's company, even when we're not on the same side of issues. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. It's an honor to serve the people of Medford, and I thank them for placing their trust in me for a third term on the council. And I'm very thankful to my colleagues for your support in making me president-elect last month and electing me as council president tonight for the year 2024. All of you and residents may have seen that our agenda looks a little bit different tonight. A bit more modern, I dare say. And modernization is going to be a theme of the City Council this term, as we adopt some new technologies and new approaches to accomplish even more than we already have during my first two terms on the Council. I want to thank the entire team in the City Clerk's office, including City Clerk Adam Hurtubise, Assistant City Clerk Sylvia DiPlacido, Principal Clerk Janice DePace for their hard work supporting the Council, and especially Head Clerk Annie Kelly, who worked diligently alongside Clerk Hurtubise and me to get CivicClerk software online and off the ground in time to put together the agenda for this meeting. I also want to thank Medford Community Media Director Kevin Harrington and his team for installing these new monitors, which will help improve hybrid meeting accessibility, and for the work that we're going to do over the next few months to upgrade the audio system in the chambers, bring council meetings to YouTube live streaming, and hopefully even more. There are three principles that I intend to follow as I guide this council. Collaboration, planning, and trust. I know that if we ground our work in those principles, we'll be able to accomplish big things and deliver the results that residents want to see from their local government. Later tonight, I'll present two items that will help organize us towards those principles, a new committee structure, and a governing agenda framework for our 2024-2025 term. I know these will help the council collaborate better, plan better, and build trust across city government and with residents. Nothing can get done in city government without collaboration. I'm incredibly proud of the work this council did last term to work together in lockstep to advance shared goals and to pass several major ordinances, including the zoning recodification that will serve as the foundation for our zoning reform project this term. But collaboration within the council is not enough. We've made some progress on the budget ordinance and setting up the financial task force agreed to in the budget agreement that President Morell and I reached with the mayor last June. And I look forward to working with Vice President-elect Collins to establish strong collaboration with the mayor and her administration. This council has and will continue to reach out in good faith on every initiative and invite the collaborative approach we know will be needed to succeed and deliver results for Medford. Collaboration is a first step, but in order to get anything done, we need a plan. I've been focused on better planning since my first day in office. I was glad to assist in the development of our city's first comprehensive plan, as well as supporting the implementation of the housing production plan, climate plan, and more. Last May, I proposed the Medford Better Future Budget Plan to put forward immediate targeted changes to our city charter and our city ordinances to improve our budget process and get on the road to planning to fund the solutions to the big challenges our community faces. I'm glad that some of that plan has been incorporated into the budget ordinance discussions that we've had and initial meetings to set up the financial task force. The governing agenda framework and committee structure that I will present later is another element of planning that will help improve the council's work product process and make all of our efforts more transparent to residents and the public. Finally, getting big things done comes down to trust. Trust among elected officials, trust among key public and private stakeholders, and the trust of residents and the public in what their city government is doing. We have major projects ahead, an updated budget process, passing a near $200 million general fund budget this year and next year, recommendations of the financial task force around potential Proposition 2.5 debt exclusions or overrides, comprehensive citywide zoning reform that implements several of our major plans, and the drafting of a new city charter to propose to the mayor and the state legislature based on the work of the Charter Study Committee. To accomplish those huge tasks, we need the trust of the public. I commit to lead this council in the spirit of openness and transparency, to provide a clear plan for our work to the public, and to tell the public the truth to the fullest extent possible, even when the truth is hard to hear. Thank you again for your trust in electing me as council president, and I'll work to continue earning the trust of all of you and the public this term. Thank you. And I'll turn it back over to the clerk. and I will sign a document first.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, sir. I would nominate Councilor Collins for vice president.
[Zac Bears]: I rescind my nomination. I rescind, I withdraw my nomination and I leave the floor to my fellow councilor.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Kit Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Clerk, for your service tonight, and I hope we didn't keep you too long. 24-003, appointment of a City Messenger for 2024 and 2025. I open the floor to nominations for the appointment of a City Messenger. Councilor Collins. I nominate Lawrence Lepore. On the second, nominating Lawrence Lepore, Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Are there any other nominations? Is there a motion to close? Motion to close. Motion to close nominations, Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. On the vote to appoint Lawrence Lepore as City Messenger for 2024 and 2025. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Lawrence Lepore. Seven in the affirmative for Lawrence Lepore, none in the negative. Lawrence Lepore, you are appointed City Messenger for the year 2024-2025. Larry, we know you as Larry. I'm going off the sign, my friend. If you could come up and receive your oath from the clerk.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Congratulations. Do you want to say anything? In all honesty, Larry's basically where I go if I'm looking for exactly what the heart of public opinion is. Wonderful. 24-004, resolution to adopt standing committee rules from prior year. Be it resolved that the standing committee rules be adopted as the standing rules of the city council insofar as they're applicable. Councilor, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Do we need to call the roll on these? Okay, it's seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. and we don't have to call the roll on this one, so all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 24-005, offered by Vice President Collins. Resolution to transfer all papers and committee from 2023 to 2024. Be it resolved that the city council transfer all papers and committees are on the table from the 2023 council to the 2024 council. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I have a motion of Councilor Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favour? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. It's because he said my name right. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records. We'll take the records of the reports and then we'll go to Councilor Scarpelli's resolutions under suspension, pending a motion to do so. Records, the records of the meeting of December 19th, 2023 were passed to Senior Councilor, Councilor Scarpelli. Senior Councilor, I see everything is in order, Mr. President, move approval. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve the records, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favour? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Reports of committees. 22-494 offered by myself. I will defer to Vice President Collins. Subcommittee on Ordinances and Rules Committee Report, December 20, 2023. This was on the Budget Ordinance. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Council Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Mr. President? Yes, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to take papers 2-4-0-1-2, 0-1-3, and 0-1-4, under suspension, seconded by? Anyone on suspension? Seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 24-012, offered under suspension by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council send the family of James Jack McDevitt our deepest condolences on his recent passing. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, actually, all those in favor. Can we do all three? Sure. 24-013, offered under suspension by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council send the family of Judith Granara our deepest condolences on her recent passing.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. 24-014 offered under suspension by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council send the family of Ernest Ernie Artelino our deepest condolences on his recent passing. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to join the three papers and approve, all those in favour? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Would everyone please rise for a moment of silence. Motion over to regular business Councilor Scott by seconded by Councilor vice president Collins, I'm gonna have trouble with that one. All those in favor. I oppose motion passes 23-460 special from a permit for hours mailings for 34 a Salem Street Medford ma 02155. Legal notice, Medford City Clerk's Office. Notice of a public hearing, Medford City Council. A public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council and the Howard F. Alden Memorial Auditorium, City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, on January 9th, 2023 at 7 p.m. A Zoom link to be posted no later than Friday, January 5th, 2024, on a petition from Wiley Enterprises, DBA, Baylings, 434A, Salem Street, Medford MA, 02155, for a special permit to amend its hours of operation in accordance with the Medford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, 7.2.1, to operate extended hours at its business 434A Salem Street, Medford MA 02155, said site being located in a commercial zoning district C1 as follows. Extended hours of operation requested Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, 11 p.m. to 1230 a.m. Friday, Saturday, 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. Sunday, 11 p.m. to 12 a.m. Petition and plan may be seen in the office of the City Clerk. Medford City Hall, Medford M.A., call 781-393-2425 for any accommodations aides. The City of Medford is an EEO-AA-504 employer. By order of the City Council, Adam L. Hurtubise, City Clerk, advertising the Medford transcript in Somerville Journal, December 21st, 2023, and December 28th, 2023. I believe we recently had a victualer's license come through for a change in ownership for this business, and they had to come back to adopt again the special permit for hours extension. At this point, I would be happy to hear from the petitioner if they are on Zoom. Hi, good evening. Good evening.
[Zac Bears]: uh give us one moment we're having a we have a new audio issue we may need you to just repeat what you said but we need to turn up the audio here in the chamber sure i'm sorry no it's our fault
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Lee, could you try to give us a test?
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, please, if you could just repeat what you said just a moment ago, so everyone can hear and then we can move ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Lee, I will go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further discussion before I open the public hearing? Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I think that's a typo on our end, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Take it all back. Sunday is just listed on the first line at the end accidentally, I think. But we could strike that Sunday in the records. Scrivener's error. We'll make sure it's not there in the records. Thank you. Great. Any further discussion? Councilor, Vice President Collins. Great, whereas this is a public hearing, I do need to open the public hearing. Public hearing is so open. Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor or opposition to the petition? Mr. Lee, if you wanna just say that you're in favor.
[Zac Bears]: Anyone else would like to speak in favor or opposition to the paper? Seeing none, this portion of the public hearing is closed. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve with 30-day and 60-day review. I did, yes. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve with 30 and 60-day review, seconded by Vice President Collins. Where is this special permit? Do I need to call the roll?
[Zac Bears]: We'll call the roll on this one.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes and the special permit is approved. Thank you, Mr. Lee, and good luck.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Good night.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Next papers are proposed by myself, so I will turn the chair over to the vice president.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair, President Collins. I will eventually get used to what our titles are. And nobody's called anyone President Rorel yet, even though we'll see. We'll see if we make it through. So the resolution here is relatively self-explanatory, but the 18-page document surely may not be. The intent here was really to sketch out a framework of what we would be doing this term and where and how we would be considering these various proposals. If you take a look at the document, it was included in the agenda packet that went out as well. President Collins will be sharing it on the screen in just a moment. You can see that there's a document here that's a draft framework, and there's a table of contents that I think is useful to look at. Essentially, I looked at everything that was in committee, as well as things that have been discussed, papers in committee, papers on the table, items that have been discussed, excuse me, in the past, and broke it down across our new committee structure. which we can now look at this document and see for each committee, what are the major projects that the committee may be entertaining for the term? What are the ordinances that the committee may be entertaining for the term? And what are some of the oversight and public engagement tasks that each committee may be undertaking? This is not exhaustive because it does not have The most important contribution which is the contribution from each of the six of you. This is just what was already in front of us from the last term, either in a committee or major projects like the zoning reform, obviously the Charter has been in consideration, the budget discussions have been in consideration. So while this is, I think, a long framework, really my ask of all of you is, what are you excited to work on that's not included in here? Let's submit those items, and then we can sit down in committee of the whole, as we have in the past, and discuss our council priorities, discuss which committee we think they should fall under, and then develop a fully fleshed out version of this framework that considers everything that councilors may want to look at over the next two years. the best plan in the world. If it lasts three months, I think we'll be amazed without a change, right? Things will come up. Issues will come up. Circumstances will change. Priorities will become urgent that we didn't consider. My first term two months in the pandemic started. My priorities completely changed. I didn't get to see Councilor Scarpelli for, you know, several months. It was, you know, sad to lose my new friend. Um, and, uh. So, best laid plans right but I think this is a good framework and foundation for us to share with the public hey, here's what we're planning to do for the next two years, and there's some documents in here as well there's kind of draft timelines under each committee. So, that's the intent of this motion is for folks to go through. If they see anything in here, you know that they. maybe have questions about or want to add to that's welcome if there's something that's not in here that we really want to work on let's submit that by the 18th and we can discuss in committee of the whole and I think really as you go through this you'll see but really all that's needed to submit is how long do you think the project will take when do you want to start it and what is a description of what the project is and we can go from there and it can range all the way from The biggest thing, although I think we've, you know, when I first started it was always said budget ordinances, you know, and charter right those are the three things kind of that the council has some review over. And, and I may have gotten that wrong just now but Councilor Scarpelli can correct me in a minute. But we're already doing those three things. But there are many other elements of governance that I'm sure are not included in here. Just a little bit more context. If you go through for the committees, I also put in some kind of what areas of city government. Yeah, if you want to share, President Collins, that'd be great. Basically what areas of city governance are falling under each committee. So, if you say go to the administration and finance committee on its page four of the document and then page 14 of this larger packet. you can see kind of the areas and departments. Yeah, perfect right there. That fall under that would fall under this proposed committee. So budget, finance, auditing, taxation, procurement, grant administration, retirement and pensions personnel, then you can see the departments, what are the departments that exist that would fall under there. And then I also took a quick pass through the city ordinances on Muni code and the city regulations to say, hey, this committee is probably mostly going to be looking at chapter two of administration, chapter 50 human relations, chapter 66 personnel. You have the big project section, which Councilor Collins just went through three that I've put in here that we've obviously discussed. If you could scroll up a little bit more, our annual budget process, we've had discussions about revenue generation, you know, based on the financial task force and the classification and compensation study that I know that we have been waiting with bated breath for years and we need to get going on because we have unfilled positions and we haven't, you know, I'm waiting for Council Bingo for us to start talking about the things that we've been talking about every meeting for the last two years that I'm really hoping we can move the needle on such as fixing our classification and compensation so that we can do at least address that portion of the reason for unfilled positions, especially such as city solicitor and assistant city solicitor, which are so important. So those are kind of big projects that a committee could consider right now in terms of ordinances. The only ordinance that's in committee and understood discussion that would fall in here would be the budget ordinance, which we are relatively close on after five or six meetings with the administration and subcommittee. And then there's this piece around oversight and engagement. The item on financial review and long-term budget planning, for example, for administration and finance, we've been talking about that constantly. There's several items on the table from Councilor Knight, myself, and others around getting the information that we need to really be doing this financial review. I think some of that will be addressed through the budget ordinance, but I know this long-term budget planning and forecasting, Councilor Tseng, Councilor Collins, and I, and the prior subcommittee on ordinances and rules have really been pushing hard to say, what can we do here? And then there's one oversight and engagement project that I put in for every committee, which is just reviewing the ordinances and regulations that may fall under that committee. I think we've all experienced most recently with the solid waste ordinance that some of our ordinances are a little out of date. addressing issues that maybe are no longer common. We do not have much coal ash on the sidewalks these days. So I think, you know, if the committee has nothing else to do, which probably won't be the case, there's probably an ordinance that could use a little bit of a touch up that would fall under that committee. So I won't go through everything. But if you want to scroll down just to the draft timeline element, there's one of these for every committee as well. just to kind of show, you know, the four quarters of each year of this term, when would we be working on these different items? And, you know, again, this is a draft. If Councilors have comments on anything that's in here, you know, I think this timeline is too ambitious, or I don't think there's enough time to be considering things like this. This really is a very first pass by me, and I'm hoping it will become much better with the input of my colleagues. So, with that, I won't go through every committee, but there are six more sections just like this for each of the other committees. And I think they really do capture a lot of what this council has moved from prior years to the current year. And again, I'm really excited to see what my colleagues would like to add to this document and beef up even more this ambitious agenda for the next two years for this council. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you know and and like this is exactly what I was hoping for, like, already two great things to add in. We should have a review schedule, maybe quarterly maybe semi annually where we come back to this document we say, what did we get done what didn't we get done let's add this new idea and let's update this. Vice President Collins and I were talking earlier about also just like us maintaining this document as a living document in between. So if you put a resolution on, I want to add this to the governing agenda and send it to this committee. So I think there'll be a lot of room there. I think Councilor Scarpelli is right on too, right? While this is meant to say, here's our unified approach, we don't want that to happen in the absence of also saying here's what each Councilor is passionate about. So one thing I think that would be really great to add here on, you know, either on the items that are already here, but certainly on new items that are submitted. If you want to be, say, the lead Councilor or the co-lead Councilor, we could add that as a line with the description and the timeline. And then it'd be like, okay, Councilor Tseng Councilor Scarpelli, they're leading on the youth commission youth summit. And that's in the agenda. It says, you know, that's our go-to, you know, and then there's a ton of other stuff in here as well. And, you know, either If there's something in here that you see that you want to put your name, stake your name to as a lead Councilor, once we start getting over three, we'll have to have conversations about who gets what because of the open meeting on the quorum stuff. But, you know, I think that's another way that we can add in to this to make this an even better framework. So I, you know, That's what this team is what that's what teamwork's about, right? This is going to get better as we work on it. So really love those 2 ideas and look forward to discussing hopefully with the approval of my colleagues this in a couple of weeks after folks have gotten their ideas in and then we can have that sit down meeting and. you know, maybe we go committee by committee, and then people raise their, you know, either here's what I'm adding in, and as people send them in by the 18th, that's why I put that deadline in. I can try to plug them into an updated draft before the meeting, and then we can go through committee by committee. If there's something that we all are like, yep, we've already been working on it, it's fine. Then maybe we don't have to have a discussion. If there's a point of disagreement, we raise it. We have the disagreement. We say, should we include it? Should we exclude it? Do we want to add something that says, Council are saying has these concerns and they should be noted in here, you know, as part of the agenda, you know, maybe just sussing out the description a little bit to make sure that if folks have concerns or questions or want to reach out to, you know, want to expand the scope of what's in the document, that that can be added as well. So I think that's a great, all going to be a great process for us to go through and come out in about a month or so, hopefully with a really strong document to lead us for the next couple of years.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve, second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. So that was a long one. Right now rule 33 of the council rules essentially says the president can do whatever the president wants when it comes to committees. Not a bad rule, but I thought a little more structure may behoove all of us, right? So I thought I'd propose a rule that maybe boxes me in a little bit from that. But really the intent here, and some of this language has come from neighboring councils in terms of everyone being a member of the committee, but the voting members being named differently. The intent here is to really, when I sat down and I was looking at I was looking at the menu on the city website for departments, and I was looking at the subcommittees that had already existed in the past. I was looking at what we had done for the past four years, and kind of the question I was asking was, what does the city do? What does city government do? And if possible, and I think this is a good summary of it, trying to get that into a manageable number of committees and make those committees descriptive not of things like ordinances, but of actually like what the function of government is. So that's how I came up with these seven committees, being administration and finance, you know, there's the administration of the city and its finances and the budget. education and culture. The city government educates the community and upholds and tries to build out the culture of our community. Governance committee, the city government is responsible for governance. What is our city charter? What are the elections? What does the structure of government look like? The city is responsible for setting up plans for land use, planning for our community, as well as permitting, like special permits and licenses. The city government is charged with protecting the public health and the community safety. It is in charge of the public works and our city facilities, and it also provides other services and engages the public in building community and what it means to be part of city government. and to understand what city government is doing. So that's kind of where these all came out of. And the idea being that, essentially, there's seven committees. So each one of us will get to chair a committee and vice chair a committee. We will be members of many of the committees, since each committee will be five members. Voting members of many committees, you also can come to any committee meeting, and we can all sit around here, and you can speak. You may not have a vote at that committee level, but you certainly will at committee of the whole and at the regular meeting. And the other piece of this is to set these as standing committees so there's a lot of business and a lot of work that could be done in a specialized area right like Councilor Scarpelli constantly is working on is on the, you know, signs of the licensing and the permitting. And, you know, that makes a lot of sense. We should just have that go to planning and permitting. And then, for example, whoever the chair of that committee is, whether it be the Vice President Collins, Vice President Collins could appoint a subcommittee on signs and licensing and permitting. And that would be a way for us to make sure that every paper that comes before us, unless it's something like a remembrance or a celebration would go to the subject matter committee. And those subject matter committees would meet on a regular day and time monthly or more frequently than monthly or less frequently than monthly. We're going to have to try this out and figure that out. But it would be very clear well in advance, for example, for our planning development sustainability staff, they would know what we're going to have to planning and permitting committee meetings this month. So we can have, you know, someone come and present on a plan development district at that committee meeting, or schedule public hearings, etc. So, that is, and also for planning and permitting committee is going to be very important as we work on the zoning work. So everyone is welcome at every committee. Most of us will be voting members on most committees, and there will be standing times and subject matters for all of us to rely on for city staff to rely on. And again, in the spirit of transparency for residents to know when and where they can be expected to show up, you know, maybe weeks and months in advance rather than just the Friday before. the next Tuesday or Wednesday. So thank you to my colleagues for considering this proposal, and I look forward to how you can improve it even more.
[Zac Bears]: The quorum will be based on voting members, but if you were to show up, even though you couldn't vote, you could speak as a member.
[Zac Bears]: So sometimes in the past we've had subcommittees where Rick would end up being here and he'd be like, I can't talk because I'm not a member of the subcommittee. And it's like the thing that he proposed.
[Zac Bears]: It gets tough. For this, the quorum would be three as well, because it'd be three of five versus four of seven, so it's not much different. Yeah, I mean, we could get a... legal opinion, I guess, but I just said, don't talk to a majority of the council. Um, if I may, if I'm not jumping the line, I just think to that point as well, like there's a couple of things in here that I thought of like, um, you know, and maybe they aren't the best, uh, necessarily the best quote-unquote politics, right, or at least the best parliamentary practice in terms of maintaining control. But there's a, subcommittees would be appointed by committee chairs, right? So if you're on the planning and permitting committee, and you want to appoint a subcommittee on licensing, permitting, and signs, right? That's not in the president's hand under these rules. It'll be under the committee chair's rules. And the other thing is that if a Councilor is here at the bottom, if a Councilor requests the committee chair shall place any paper referred to the committee on the next scheduled committee meeting agenda or the agenda for another scheduled meeting, that allows Councilors to, if they have a paper, they propose it, they send it to committee, they can then make sure that it's heard in committee. And I think we've experienced in the past, in many directions, that not happening. And Councilor Scarpelli notes it. It's happened in both directions. It's happened to me, and it's also happened that I was like, I don't want to meet on this. And I think this gives councilors individually a little bit more of a voice to say, hey, I proposed this paper, referred to committee, we haven't met on it. I'd really like to see it on the agenda. And then this rule would say, okay, then they can place it on the agenda. The other thing to your point, Councilor Scarpelli, in terms of meeting kind of the idea was we're sticking to Tuesdays and Wednesdays, you know, to start out and we'll see how this goes, you know, have one committee at six and another at seven. If the six o'clock goes a little long. then the seven o'clock starts a little later. If the six o'clock is a little short, then we have to wait around for 15 minutes to start at seven, but still keeping it to Tuesdays and Wednesday nights. If we do it that way, it also leaves open alternating Tuesdays for Committee of the Whole, as well as the meetings, the meeting time before regular meetings for either Committee of the Whole or say a subcommittee on signs. I know we were talking about that before the meeting. So it allows us to stick to Tuesday and Wednesdays, we're not going out to Thursdays or Saturdays or, you know, anything and hopefully, you know, maybe at the start the meetings might be a little long if there's several items in the committee, you know, if we have to consider all the papers and committee from the previous year and go through and say we're keeping these and we're putting these on file. but my hope is that it will still stick to relatively reasonable, not that this is ever reasonable, meeting times for us so that we're here Tuesday and Wednesday nights about six o'clock to nine o'clock, six o'clock to 10 o'clock, and not going beyond that. And we'll see. It'll all depend on how many great ideas get added to the governing agenda, right? So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. In many conversations with folks across city government, especially our friends in the city clerk's office, they said, hey, we haven't updated the fees in a while. They're pretty low compared to surrounding communities. And I think it's just important for us, as we've talked about in many different contexts to take a look at what we're doing, make sure we're making a regular review. and make sure that we are keeping up with the times when it comes to the fees that we're charging for various licenses, permits, et cetera. So I would move to refer this to the just established by your vote planning and permitting committee so that they could take a look at the fee schedule for our many departments and see what is a reasonable fee schedule to set an update for the city.
[Zac Bears]: Let's just submit send motion referred a planning and permitting committee. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, President Collins. essentially the purpose of this resolution is, as you just read, there have been calls from residents that I've heard from here in Medford, organizations statewide like Greater Boston Legal Services, requesting that communities look into, especially their boards of health, adopting this kind of state of emergency for the winter months to prevent evictions just for the cold weather. It certainly would not stop the legal process from going forward. And quite frankly, you'd probably have a big cliff effect where on April 1st, you'd see quite many evictions. And I think that's something we need to consider as well, but especially addressing the issue of putting people out in the street in the cold, in the dangerously cold winter weather with the shelter system for the state at maximum capacity with the lack of capacity or, you know, 24 hour shelters here in Medford. this resolution is the folks who can implement this is the Board of Health. We can't implement it. I don't even think the mayor can implement it. It would be the Board of Health under some state regulations. And Greater Boston Legal Services does have more information on that. But I did want to put this on the agenda and send this over to the Board of Health to request that they consider taking this action to protect the health and safety of Medford residents. So I would move to refer this to the Board of Health for their consideration. Thank you for your consideration, my fellow colleagues.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, on the specifics, this is similar to the Board of Health eviction moratoria that were put in place during the pandemic through states of emergency. Medford did not implement one, but several neighboring cities did. Greater Boston Legal Services is available to talk about the details of the legal justification behind it. Essentially how it would work, and in this case I think it speaks to, I wouldn't say that it would not have impact, but I think it would relatively minimize the impact. the proceeding would continue in court. And it's a months-long process to file for an eviction. So the proceeding would continue when the courts are considering it. This would prohibit the final enforcement of the final eviction order. So essentially it would say, stop it at the sheriff level, at the constable level, where it's just that final step. I'm not going to say that there wouldn't be delays that could potentially impact someone who is renting a unit. But it would not just say, oh, you can't even start the process, or you can't go through the court process, or you can't go through those steps. It would just prevent the final enforcement of it until the weather essentially was warm enough. And I'm sure the Board of Health could consider alternative dates and time frames or setting it every year based on weather patterns, although there's not many patterns left in the weather. But yeah, that so it would not just say, oh, you can't do this and nothing is getting processed, which is actually what was happening under Governor Baker's order when the statewide had an eviction moratorium. And then that whole process had to get going again. So if someone filed for an eviction on November 15th, it likely would take 60 to 90 days for that to get through the court system or even longer than that. At that point, you're close to the March 31st date anyway.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, before you relinquish the chair back to me, just I noticed 23-412 and I didn't see on Zoom either the Dell Avenue question. I know that you had spoken to PDS. It was tabled until tonight. I would just like to motion to just leave it on the table so that it can come back up when I see the clerk raising his hand. So I will let him instruct the chair.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, so if we could just move to keep it on the table and then we can just change it to just tabled instead of to a date certain, then we can raise it at any time when the parties are here. So just be a motion to table, instead of tabling to a date certain, just to table.
[Zac Bears]: 24-010, resolution to discuss adoption of good landlord tax credit. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council explore enactment of a good landlord tax credit as outlined in Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 59, Section 50. Be it further resolved that this matter be referred to committee for further study and for discussion with the Chief Assessor and Finance Director, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. I will go to Councilor Tseng, Councilor Cullen, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. And I think it may be a three, three split and everyone knows I live in my parents' basement, so. It's not true, it's the first floor. I only come out Tuesday and Wednesday nights. Any further comment on the resolution? Any further comment on the resolution? On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng to, and I'll go back to Councilor, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins, as amended by Councilor Collins and seconded by Councilor Tseng. Oh, she already moved, okay. Then simply on the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favour? Opposed? None. Motion passes. I think we're going to switch again. Sorry about that.
[Zac Bears]: What's the, what are they calling it these days? The hurricane, the tornado, the vortex, something. They're calling Wellington Circle something, but it's, I can't quite remember what it is, but some sort of nightmare vortex. And as such, it's super collider, that's it, there it is. Thank you, Councilor Tseng. There's a few Google reviews too. The Medford super collider. our contribution to particle physics. But in any case, they studied Wellington Circle. It's bad. Study headline, not good. But they did issue some recommendations, short-term recommendations and long-term recommendations to improve safety for all modes of transit. at Wellington Circle, as well as, I think, at least in my read of some of the recommendations, it will look a lot nicer. It will actually activate, to an extent, it will activate the idea of building a neighborhood and connecting the different parts of the Wellington neighborhood to a little more if that intersection is not the disastrous arrangement that it is today. However, at the end it says, and Medford will work on this with MassDOT District 4 and MassDOT and through the MassDOT project development process. So really the only purpose of this resolution is to ask Director Blake, where are we? As we all know, certainly Medford is not going to be able to pay to fix that intersection, nor is it our jurisdictional responsibility to do so, but we are part of the process. And Director Blake, was, you know, that the city of Medford was named as part of the next step. So reaching out to MassDOT and making sure that we know where this is in the process, how it will be funded, what are the timelines we can expect for the short-term mitigations to potentially go into effect, as well as the long-term redesign of the entire intersection. And that's all this is. So this would be a motion to refer to Traffic and Transportation Director Blake.
[Zac Bears]: It is, it's on the, I was gonna come up with something, but it's on the mass, it's mass.gov. I could not tell you how much further the URL goes, but if you were to type into Google Wellington Circle Study, it'd be on the mass.gov website. And then there's a page for Wellington Circle Study. And then there's a list of documents on that page. And I think it is the, it's called the final report, I believe is what it's called, but. You should see the, they wanted to, one of the proposed alternatives was an overpass, which I, yeah, well, I would have liked the tunnel, but the overpass is, yeah, so. But yeah, some Google. Short answer, Google.
[Zac Bears]: the great divide.
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: We're going back all the way to the Osgoode school days. I thought President Collins was going to use the gavel before me. Watch out. That brings us to public participation. Is there anyone, any member of the public on Zoom or in the room who would like to speak for public participation? I think we have one. I'm seeing no one on Zoom. We have someone in the room. Oh, Jack is coming up. Yeah. Name and address for the record, please. Oh, if you could tap the... Where it says push?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Just to clarify what I'm hearing, we want to put a resolution on our next regular meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Council President, appreciate it. And just for the, maybe not for the records, but maybe just so we can get that resolution put together for our meeting on the 23rd, who would we want to invite? The state representatives, state senator, and then invite to like the representatives from the Healy administration. I can't remember what their office is. Does anyone remember the name of the office that's working on this? Is it EOHLC? It's that one? Yeah. And then there's General Keefe, right? General Gary Keefe is working. Yeah. So the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities and then also a representative of General Keefe or the General if you would like to come. Got it. So we will get that.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it'll be on the agenda. It'll be part of the agenda for the city council's regular meeting on the 23rd.
[Zac Bears]: I'll see if they can change that. We'll ask them to make a 24 link, and then it also should be linked to the event on the events calendar on the city website. If that wasn't there, we'll... I didn't check that. Yeah, we're working on... I expect that there may be a committee that will have several discussions about us being more engaged with the city website than we currently are.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it will be Tuesday the 23rd as part of our regular meeting agenda. I can't promise the exact time, but I expect that if we do have those representatives or some of them here, we may take it under suspension earlier in the meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Great. Thank you. Anything else, Mr. Merritt? Wonderful, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. We'll get that on the agenda for the 23rd. Anyone else like to speak under public participation? You're welcome to come to the podium and give your name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for sharing the information. I think we'd all appreciate that. I don't know if Councilor Stroud has already received some of the research, and we could certainly look into this on our own, and I'll defer to other Councilors in a minute. In terms of the budget and the control of the facilities, this Council doesn't have the power to put anything in the budget, only the Mayor does, and then the control of the facilities does sit with the Director of Athletics, delegated by the Superintendent. but we certainly can ask these same questions and try to push for action. And I will go to my fellow Councilors who may have other comments. Councilor Scarpelli, then Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Laming. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Thank you, Mr. Brown. And I think we will find between the research that you've done and the advocacy that you've done and some of the resources that we've had here, I'm hoping some sort of meeting or collaboration or effort to at least advance the ball in some direction. So and if necessary, if anyone after your discussions wants to put something on for a future agenda for official action as well. But I think even just the meeting of the minds here and the discussions so far, could lead to some progress. So thank you to my fellow councillors. Thank you for coming tonight in public participation. Is there anyone else on Zoom or in the chamber who would like to participate in public participation? Seeing none, public participation is concluded. Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to take the papers for 224—23-463, the City Water System Bond Order, and 22-605, the Solid Waste Ordinance, off the table, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favour? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 22-463 City Water System Bond Order. This was in City Council December 12, 2023, and was approved for first reading on December 12, 2023. It was advertised for second reading in the Medford Transcript and Somerville Journal on December 21, 2023, and is eligible for third reading tonight, January 9, 2024. Since we have come from a prior council to a new council, I will just add this is a bond order for the Water and Sewer Department to take out, I believe it's through the interest-free MWRA loan program bonding funds to improve our water and sewer infrastructure, which from some of our discussions, I know folks know is not in the best of conditions. So that is what that is. That's all me. On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve for third reading, seconded by seconded by, I saw Emily, I saw Councilor Lazzaro's hand. So we'll go with Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The ordinance is approved for third, or the bond order is approved for third reading. 22-605, the solid waste ordinance. We've had several committee meetings on it. The final draft appeared in city council December 12th, 2023, and was approved for first reading on the same date. It was advertised for second reading on December 28th, 2023 in the Medford Transcript and Summerville Journal, and it's eligible for third reading this evening. Again, for our fellow councilors, this is an update to the solid waste ordinance. I believe the updated draft was circulated to members of the body at the request of Councilor, Vice President Collins. And if there's anything you want to say on this one, I know you worked on this pretty hard for several months.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve her third reading, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes and the ordinance is approved for third reading. It is ordained. Other than that, that concludes the agenda. Other than reports due, is there a motion on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to adjourn. Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favour? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to suspend the rules to take papers 23-412. 23-412. 4-7-4, 2-3-4-7-5, 2-3-4-7-6. And that's it. And the motion of Vice President Bears is to take 2-3-4-1-2, 2-3-4-7-4, 2-3-4-7-5, and 2-3-4-7-6 out of order, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: I would motion to, well, I don't want to. I'll let you speak, but after you speak, I'm going to motion to table to a date, sir.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I would make the motion to table to January 9th our date certain. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. This is an amendment or addendum to the previous resolution. from November 14th that we joined with Councilor Scarpelli as well. There was one from Councilor Caraviello, President Morell and I, one from Councilor Scarpelli. Those were referred to the Elections Commission and the Elections Commission voted 3 to 1 to postpone their discussion of the item until their January meeting. So I'm not particularly happy that that decision was made. I don't think I don't think this should be something that waits. Many of us here spent some time at City Hall on December 9th for the first and what happened to be the only day of the recount. While the results of the recount did not change in any way the results of the election, I think what was found to be inaccurate was significant and concerning in the sense that if the election had been close or if any of the races had been close, Those numbers could have changed the results of an election. almost 130 ballots in one precinct that somehow didn't get counted in the unofficial count, right? So in addition to everything that was in the resolution that we passed November 14th, which had to do with all of the things that happened that we knew at the time had happened up until election day and on election night, the recount also did expose a couple of other items for consideration. And that's incredibly important to the community that We have answers to those questions and answers to the process and fixes to the process and staffing and resources in that department. So that we have confidence that, number one, mistakes that were made in the past aren't going to be made again. And number two, when mistakes happen, which in any human endeavor is inevitable that there will be things that go wrong. the public is made aware and the candidates are made aware right away. I think that's really the most important thing. I know in the past when issues did occur, you know, and I haven't been involved as long as some other folks here, but Sandy Gale, Clark Hurtubise, others really did try to get the word out right away. We had this issue. We want you to know what the issue was. We want you to know how we tried to address it, or who we brought in to help address it. I know that Finn had done similar things as well. And that has to be how our elections offices operate, right? If there is an issue, you get the word out right away. The operating procedure can't be that if there's an issue, you try to fix it without anyone noticing, because that just does not bring trust. So putting this on, formally putting on an item for this report to be on our agenda with the deadline of January 23rd, which is our first regular meeting after the next election commission meeting. But I am disappointed that the election commission, I believe their rationale was that they had to plan for the recount. I understand that. I wish they had had, uh, that they had considered an issue to response to this report in a more timely manner because there's an election in March. The presidential primaries in March. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: What was that? Did you say give them a raise, Councilor? I missed that. What was that? Motion to approve as amended. Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to refer to the Zoning Planning and Development Subcommittee.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, while we're on suspension, motion to take public participation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, we received an email, Nate, that the state government is in the governor's executive office. The state government is in negotiations with a private property owner at that location for housing of migrant families. That's all we know. And then I believe that the mayor's email also said that they are trying to negotiate to have the city in some way involved in that process. But right now, the state and the private property. I can read it. Yeah. I can share this with you. Sure, that'd be great.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I just want to, in terms of like next steps and actions, this wasn't on the agenda. We shouldn't debate that since it wasn't on the agenda, wasn't publicly posted. We're talking about transparency. We shouldn't take action on things that we didn't let the public know we were going to talk about. I just wanted to take it back to that. I did ask a follow up of the mayor. The mayor said the state basically. If the state signs a contract with the property owner, that's the arrangement. The city has no input, no involvement, unless the state wants to give the city involvement. So if the state and the property owner sign an agreement, that's what's going to be what happens. The city doesn't have, the state comes in and they can do what they want. So that's where this is at, is my understanding, because I wanted to follow up specifically on that question. And I believe the mayor's email is written in the way to show specifically concern that if the state and the property owner just make an agreement without considering the city, since they don't legally have to consult the city and the city doesn't own the property, it's a private land and the state is trying to pay, essentially lease private property for their own purposes. Her concern, to my understanding, reading of the email and my follow-up question, was that the city be consulted and engaged in that process in some way. but that essentially the state can just sign an agreement with this private property owner if they wish to do so.
[Zac Bears]: Motion, second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Councilor Caraviello has served with me the entire time that I've been on the City Council, and we've served through a pandemic, zoning recodification, two city elections since I was elected, I think 15, 16, 17 ordinances maybe at this point. And I have been really lucky to learn from Councilor Caraviello, to work with Councilor Caraviello, especially on development projects and trying to engage property owners, trying to engage people who want to come to the city and build new good things in our community. I think sometimes we've been successful. Sometimes we haven't been as successful as we wanted to be. And I personally really want, and I'm hoping if Carol lets you, that you will give a little more time and give me a call if you see a good opportunity or you hear someone who wants to come to the city. and wants to talk to a city councilor about that. But I also think you've more than earned some time off, time with family, after many, many years of public service, not just on the council, but before your time on the council in volunteerism and service to the community. So thank you, and I will miss you as a colleague, and I hope that you get to spend many vacations getting suntanned and enjoying some time in warm places.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to add one more thing, and I'm sorry to speak out of second time already, but I think it's a testament to how much you've done your service to the city, your service to your colleagues, your devotion to your family, that none of us mentioned that you also got us a brand new library. And I just, you know, again, It's a beautiful place that thousands of people are using every day that wouldn't be here if you hadn't put in incredibly hard work to get it here, to get it funded after the fact. And it's going to be there for generations and have your name in a few places on it as well deserved. So I just wanted to say that and also to say that this council, I think especially this term, we don't agree all the time. but we care for each other. We agree, we agree to disagree. And we know that we all care so much about Medford. And I think you lead with that, right? We've disagreed on many things, but I've never felt like you didn't respect me and I didn't respect you. And I think that's incredibly important. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I have been lucky enough to have Councilor Knight here to tell me everything I'm doing wrong, every meeting, quietly, which is what I appreciated. And occasionally, even to give me a heads up in advance, when he knew I was going to do something wrong, so I could correct course before I made the mistake and embarrass myself. That's my personal thing to say about having Councilor Knight sitting next to me for my first four years on this council. But in addition to being a great colleague. He's incredibly devoted to this city and to the institution of the Medford City Council in a way that I hope that I can at least take a piece of and continue into the future. He knows not just the history of the council since he's been on it, but the history of the council before that. He deeply cares about the city of Medford and seeing it go in the right direction. And he is nothing if not persistent and passionate in that cause. Similarly to Councilor Caraviello, Councilor Knight, is a father and he has spent many nights away from his family in this chamber serving the people of Medford when he may, at least maybe some of the time, would have wanted to be there with his family. And that sacrifice does not go unnoticed and unremarked this evening. He's got a legal mind for the state laws and the city ordinances. He always brings up that subtle point of procedure or the rules or the court precedent for us to consider. And he always wants to make sure that we're dotting our I's and crossing our T's so that when we pass things as this council, that they are enduring and that they live in the history of our city for a long time. And I have appreciated learning as much as I can from him in the time that I've been able to sit next to him. So I just want to thank you, Councilor Knight, for your service to the city and for what you've been able to share with me.
[Zac Bears]: And I want to note for the record, you will get your chair. You will get your chair. The only Councilor to ever get a chair and a clock.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. It has been noted multiple times on what remains of the public discourse of the city that I only got the most votes in the last election because you didn't run.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know. I don't know who the anonymous commenters are. If they are you, I understand. But I really cannot begin to talk about what it's meant to serve with you. We ran together in our first campaign. We got elected. We came onto this council in January 2020. And, you know, I think all of the things, the kind things that have been said about Councilor Caraviello, Councilor Knight, Councilor Marks two years ago, and also some of the funny ones, we experienced them directly. We experienced the very specific legalisms of Councilor Knight, the history and the knowledge of Councilor Caraviello, the history and the knowledge and loud speaking of Councilor Marks. And we experienced it together. And I don't know that if I had been elected just on my own without having you been elected alongside me, that I would have handled it a quarter as well as I was able to sharing that experience. those first few months, and what am I kidding, those first two years, without being able to serve alongside you. You are incredibly devoted to this city. You came to the city and you made it your home. And you said, if I'm going to make this my home, I want to make it better. And I want to devote my time to that. You have devoted immense time to this council, to your colleagues, to the pursuit of bold ideas, ideas that we hadn't tried before, ideas that had been put on the table and hadn't made their way through the process. And we've accomplished a lot. And you've accomplished a lot over the past four years, I think, especially to note that you've served four years, but two of those as president. is important to note as well, that you have led this council this term with aplomb. We have accomplished an incredible amount. We have been an incredibly civil council. I think if we go back and look at the TV3 records, only 5% to 10% of the time will we have been making donkeys out of ourselves. And I think that's a testament to state leadership and leadership that brings our focus back to the issues at hand. I have been very lucky to serve with you, and I am not sure what it's going to mean. As Councilor Scarapelli noted, or President Zagreb, I don't know what it means to be a Councilor without President Nicole Morell, Councilor Nicole Morell. While I invite all of my former colleagues to call me and tell me what I'm doing wrong, if you all do it at the same time, I'm gonna take her call first. So, thank you, thank you, thank you. And I hope that we'll be able to pull you back in.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President. I just want to add Councilor Mark's remarks to the record about how hard elected officials work and how much they deserve.
[Zac Bears]: My bad.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. We reviewed an amended version of the draft budget ordinance presented by the administration. There'll be a follow-up meeting. It was initially scheduled for tomorrow, but will likely be rescheduled to next week, and I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. My thoughts are with you, Councilor Knight. Motion to suspend the rules to take papers. 23-412. Yeah. 23-464. 23-468. 23-469. 23-463. And 23-467.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to continue to the 19th.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's right above. It's the raising canes page.
[Zac Bears]: It will be the 23rd next week. We can make that work.
[Zac Bears]: January 16th.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President. I'm just realizing that I left out of that list 23-462, which is just accepting a grant agreement. Could we just add that? It should take a second.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think that would be good.
[Zac Bears]: It's on page 19. 19.
[Zac Bears]: We were told that meeting was over.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Councilor Caraviello? Yes.
[Zac Bears]: And- Madam President, motion to waive the remainder of the reading for a summary.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve for first reading. Second.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: to 3-467 offered by President Morell, whereas Mass General Lodge, excuse me, Chapter 71, Section 52, places the authority for school committee compensation with the City Council and whereas the Medford School Committee is a duly elected body of at-large members elected every two years with members being paid a yearly salary of $12,000 and whereas the majority of elected members of the Medford School Committee have historically been and continue to be women and whereas the Medford City Council is a duly elected body of at-large members elected every two years with members being paid a yearly salary of $29,359.80, and whereas the majority of elected members of the City Council have historically been and continue to be men, and whereas the ideal of equal pay for equal work is a long-established and accepted principle in our nation, and, whereas, this ordinance would establish pay parity for all members of duly elected legislative bodies in the city, now therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Medford In Chapter 66, entitled Personnel, Article 2, entitled Reserved, the City's Classification and Compensation Plan, formerly included as Article 2, Section 66-31 to 66-40, be updated with the following titles and wages, effective January 1, 2024. School committee member, $29,359.80. School committee chair, $32,550. School committee vice chair, $30,640. School committee secretary, $31,760. Further, in keeping with past practice, these wages will be paid from the Medford Schools budget and paid by the Medford Schools payroll department. All right, so we're going to not do that. Thank you. Hold on a minute. All right. Are we? Are we? OK, thank you. Well, all right, if we're going to disrupt, we're going to have to call a recess. So I'm going to read some stuff, and then I'm going to turn it over, and we're going to have a respectful conversation. This is an initial proposal placed on the agenda by a single member for the first time. How this is going to go is we're going to hear from the proponent, then I will recognize the other councillors, and then we will hear from members of the public. For the public, each person is going to have two minutes. We have a lot of interest in this, and we need to hear from everybody. And I want to make sure everybody can be heard in a reasonable amount of time. Each person will address their comments towards me as the chair, per the rules. As I said, there's a lot of interest, and we need to make sure everyone can be heard in a timely way. I will do my best to give a 30-second warning to the two-minute time limit. And your comments, again, should be directed at me. This is not a back and forth. This is not a debate with individual people. We want to hear everyone's comments. We want to hear them in a timely way. I want to state I'm, as the chair, not going to issue my opinion on this. I'm sure everyone here knows that they can find it somewhere else. I do want to say, before we start, that the purview of the chair is to state facts and to address motions of order. I want to put a number of three facts out there. School committee in Medford has not received a compensation adjustment since fiscal year 2000. In fiscal year 2000, school committee pay was $12,000 and city council pay was $13,500. 24 years later, school committee pay is still $12,000 and council pay is $29,359. Those are the facts I'm going to put out. The rest of this meeting, I'm just going to organize and make sure we have a respectful discussion. I ask that we all keep the facts in mind, that we be respectful, that we don't interrupt each other, and that people please only speak when recognized by the chair.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have a motion?
[Zac Bears]: I would like to go to- I would like to go to the proponent, and then I will recognize Councilors in order that they raise their hands and indicate to me that they would like to speak. President Morell.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I'm gonna go just address the motion, and then I'll call Councilor Knight, Councilor Collins, and then if I see another hand, they'll go next. But just before we get there, on the motion of President Morell- Second. To amend the The motion, I think there were three amendments, two strikings to whereas, and then- Yeah, that has to be an amendment, yeah. Okay, amendments to strike whereas, two of the whereas clauses referencing majority membership based on gender, and also an amendment to consider phasing this in at a different pay amount, and to refer to Committee of the Whole. Is there a second on that motion? I think Councilor Collins. Councilor Collins, is there a debate on that motion? I heard Councilor Knight, and I recognize Councilor Knight at this time.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not aware of health insurance's eligibility. I know that we were not eligible, and I don't believe that's true for the school committee either.
[Zac Bears]: I'm aware that the council used to be health insurance eligible, but that changed.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I won't speak to that. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I do want to say in 2021, we had 85 meetings. That's when we had weekly meetings. This year we had 79 meetings, so we have not cut the meetings in half. I will go to Councilor Tseng, Councilor Caraviello. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Is the proponent of the paper amenable to including those questions as an amendment? Sure. Great. So Councilor Knight's papers will be referred under the motion to Committee of the Whole. If it passes, to the Committee of the Whole for further discussion along with the paper. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, we will go to members of the public. I will alternate between in person, in public, and Zoom. If you are on Zoom, please raise your hand. If you are a member of the public, please stand in line. If you do not want to stand in line, try to grab a seat. I think we all will respect not cutting or cutting. Again, we're going to do two minutes per person. I would like everyone to please provide their name and address for the record. And we will start with the person at the chair. Please provide your name and address for the record. And I will give you a 30-second warning.
[Zac Bears]: 30 seconds left.
[Zac Bears]: I just ask you to respect the rules. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to Anne-Marie Cugno on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to Zoom, Anne-Marie Cugno. You can unmute. I'm going to ask you to unmute again. just waiting on unmute. All I can do is ask you to unmute. I can't unmute you myself. Okay. Name and address for the record, please. Thank you. So we can hear from everyone. There's a long line.
[Zac Bears]: Zoom prevents loud disruptions so that people's speakers don't get blown out on their computers or their phones.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Anne-Marie. I'm going to go to the podium. Mr. Penta, name and address for the record, please. You have two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Penty, you have 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you for your time. Again, I would just ask everyone to respect everyone who's speaking. We're hearing from everyone. As I noted, there are a lot of people who want to speak, and that's the reason there's a time limit. I ask everyone to respect it, regardless of who they are. Ms. Brandly.
[Zac Bears]: Please name and address for the record. Two minutes. I'll give you a warning, and I'm giving a little leeway here. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your time. I'll go to the podium. Mr. D'Antonio. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: The free cash reserves are currently at $25 million. Until they're certified, they can't even be appropriated. Just one moment, we have someone on Zoom, and then I'll come back to the podium. Kathy Kreatz, school committee member on Zoom, I just asked you to unmute, and I'll just ask for your name and address, and then you'll have two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for speaking. Just one second. Kathy brings up a good point. People may have come into the room or joined. since the motions were made. But the current motion on the floor is amendments from President Morell and Councilor Knight. Councilor Knight's for some legal questions. President Morell has amended to strike some sentences around the majority makeup of the bodies as well as has suggested that future committee of the whole look at a phase in or or a change to this proposal. So that is what is currently up for. That is the motion currently on the floor is to send this to committee of the whole for more discussion with those amendments. And with that, I will go back to the podium. Thank you. Name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your time. I'm going to go to Zoom. I have Rebecca on Zoom. Give us one second, Rebecca, and then name and address for the record. Please try to respect the time. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Rebecca. I'm going to go to Anna on the podium. Just name and address for the record, please. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: I said I talked to them. So I'm just saying that's who I talked to.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just saying it's less likely, and that's statistically true.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to stop now.
[Zac Bears]: That's a cut. You're good. You're on. Give me an address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: I'll let you know when you have 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: They are Gina, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your time. No one on Zoom, we'll go to Ms. Douglas.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your time.
[Zac Bears]: Ms. Douglas. I just asked.
[Zac Bears]: And I just want to clarify, we wanted, we proposed that we'd be the first in the state to take it on. We were told the same thing that everyone else here has been told. And I think we all would like to see the city spending more of its reserves on the priorities that we all share. Thank you. I'll go to the podium.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your time.
[Zac Bears]: I do want to add, and I don't know if this law has changed since Councilor Scarapelli was on the school committee, state law asks and requires that school committee members be invited because they don't want school committee members walking into the schools unannounced, uninvited, to pass out pamphlets per se. So that formal thing is a requirement.
[Zac Bears]: I hear you and I think a lot of people would like to come. I don't know if it satisfies the legal requirements, but thank you. I just wanted to put that out there. Name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: There was a recent court case, you may be well able to do most of that. We just ask that everyone do it one at a time.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please, and I'll let you know when I have 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your time. I just want the clapping so we can hear you. Name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: I do want to note, I believe Ms. Vanden Heuvel, Mr. Giacomasso, Mr. Brady, and Mr. Pompeo were all on the school committee in 2000. And that budget that passed that year had a similar increase from $5,000 to $12,000 for the school committee. So just want to put that out there as a fact. Well, that's just a fact. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? We have one person on Zoom. And I will go to them. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, just we have some noise there. I want to make sure everyone can hear you, Kate.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think we're gonna ask personal questions.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing none in the room, and seeing none on Zoom, there's a motion on the floor that has been, oh, Councilor Knight. Oh, sorry, Councilor Morell, then Councilor Knight. Sorry, my apologies.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it's not an easy job.
[Zac Bears]: Can we, okay. The council, the council respected all public comment. I just ask that we keep it to one mic, please. One voice. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. And I apologize, Councilor Collins, I missed you. frantically looking over here and I wasn't looking over there. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. We're going to go to Councilor Knight, and then we do have one more public comment on this.
[Zac Bears]: Thank God tonight. There are already motions on the floor. Would you like to include that as an amendment to the paper itself?
[Zac Bears]: Right, there's already motions on the floor. I'm going to take them in order and it's possible that your motion won't be heard. Would you like to also put that as an amendment? Sure. All right. Thank you, Councilor Knight. Going to go to Fire Eastford Tau, we know as Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. Two minutes, and I will tell you when you have 30 seconds. Mr. Castagnetti.
[Zac Bears]: Andrew, I'm going to have to mute you to think of your television. We have a lot of feedback creating noise in the room.
[Zac Bears]: Can you hear me?
[Zac Bears]: Sorry about that. We'll try to go back to him. Jamie, I'll go to you, then we'll see if we can get Mr. Castagnetti.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Jamie. All right, Andrew, I'm going to go back to you, but I need you to mute your television.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing none, there's a motion on the floor to refer to Committee of the Whole as amended by Councilor Morell, and then Councilor Knight, and then Councilor Morell, and then Councilor Knight. On that motion, seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favour? All opposed? Roll call. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Do you want to read all the amendments? All right, I will summarize the amendments, and you can let me know if it's sufficient. There was an amendment initially from President Morell to strike the whereas clauses referring to the majority membership of each body. There was a further amendment to refer this to Committee of the Whole, along with the suggestion that this proposal be looked at as both a phase-in over time and potentially a different amount. There were several motions by Councilor Knight made by email and text regarding legal questions in various sections of Massachusetts general law, and asking for those questions to be answered as part of this discussion. And then I believe, Councilor Knight, that there's also an amendment that this, at some point, be referred to the compensation study that is being conducted by the administration for a response. Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Scarpelli has a motion to receive a place on file, I'll take that after the first motion, that was seconded. So on the motion, as amended, please call the roll, Mr. Clerk.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 5 in the affirmative, 2 in the negative. The motion passes and the paper is referred to committee as amended. Is there a motion on the floor? Motion to revert to the regular order of business by President Morell, seconded by seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion passes. We'll average the regular order. Would we like to take a five-minute recess? Motion, President Morell, five-minute recess, seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion passes. We are in recess for five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to suspend the rules to take public participation.
[Zac Bears]: I'll be super brief if we want to move to the next item. I just want to be clear that what's happening here is that the land is so valuable and the prices are so high that it's worth building luxury units. And they're going to keep doing that unless we allow them to build something else on the site. And that's likely a larger number of smaller, affordable units. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Where's the mayor on this? Excuse me? The mayor, has she been, did she say she would advance this?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, so if we do this, then the mayor has to approve and then it'll go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, everyone, for sticking around on this one. I know it's important. I know we have a deadline on it. My one question, sorry, and I just didn't catch it, Emily, was, Was that a reduction in the square footage, an additional recommendation beyond what the CD board has recommended? And that's the recommendation of, that's your recommendation, or is it the staff's recommendation?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. That's helpful context. I was wondering what the offer was on the recommendation. So I was wondering why there was one to center. But that's helpful context. I don't have any further questions. After questions and comment, I would move to approve and adopt the recommendations of the Community Development Board, as well as the recommendation to change the lot size from 10,000 to 7,000, if I got it right, square feet. and I'll hold until discussion is complete.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to say one thing since we're all here late. I did talk to someone on the phone today, and they asked me, is there going to be a big controversy tonight? And I said, about what? And they said, about the MBT community zoning. And I said, luckily, I don't think so. So interesting conversation, but thanks for sticking with me.
[Zac Bears]: To be ordained with the recommendations of the Community Allotment Board and to change the the minimum lot size from 10,000 square feet to 7,000 square feet.
[Zac Bears]: Why don't we say we have the president read the whole solid waste ordinance just for fun.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, he was like, no, I will not summarize it.
[Zac Bears]: 131 Fuzzler West. I'm 625. Now you know where I live. It's just on the city website. Oh. We're good.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I for one would like to make a stand for the broken boards and the coal ash and the crockery and the cinders.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve for first reading with the amendments.
[Zac Bears]: As amended.
[Zac Bears]: It's going to take a while, so I want the whole thing read. I just want to remind us, even with this meeting, it's only 11 o'clock.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Half of us will think it's endearing, and the other half will think it's accurate, right?
[Zac Bears]: Trash Collins, waste of time fairs. Another one for my page 13. Another word for my list.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli, for bringing this forward. I drive through there pretty regularly, and it's just not good at night. Probably six, seven, eight months ago, I worked with Director Hunt to contact DCR. I actually saw Commissioner Arrigo at the Clippership Connector, and Councilor Tseng and I talked to him, and I brought this specific issue up, and I completely agree with you. And I talked to Mr. Randazzo, I talked to Steve about it, and he's like, I've been talking about this for two and a half years. And so I completely agree with you. I think if we can get everyone in the room, I know Representative Donato was on an email chain that he would be trying to do that. Maybe this could be the meeting that he tries to work through his office to invite the state agency and the neighbor and everybody in.
[Zac Bears]: I know this is for the meeting that we're talking about, but to be honest, if the issue is we can't get the papers up to get the stuff in, take the bulbs out of the lights. I think you might actually be better off with no light than with the blinking, and it's really disruptive. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: You can refer it to subcommittee on public works.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Specifically ask Representative Donato to get the state to show up to the meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Unlimited terms. All right.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Director Hunt, for helping get this refined and out, and now we have, I think, a couple of good submissions back. As one Councilor, I mean, I think there's some significant difference between the two in the sense that one obviously has a significant amount of experience in our area and specifically within the city of Medford. And I think there's a lot of value there because we won't be, if we were to go with that proposal, we would not have to be kind of educating so much the proponent on or the applicant on our community and the comprehensive plan and the various plans that we're using to inform this process. as well as the priorities of the City Council when it comes to zoning. I do think both proposals are really strong. I don't want to discount that. Uh, for me, um, I do think that working with, you know, attorneys from Bob Prokowski, Haverty and Silverstein working with Emily Ennis, you know, those are folks we've worked with on. Not just the plans, but also the zoning reconification also on a number of specific project base issues. I mean, I think they have a really good understanding of Medford. what our priorities are for development, and I think that that is invaluable because I think it means we can hit the ground running really well with that team. That being said, I did appreciate the other proposal. One thing from the other proposal that I really think I would like to see maybe from the other team, if we go with the other team, I liked this project schedule page. I don't know, that might be too far away to zoom in on it. On page 12 of the Fisher proposal, that was just a really helpful schedule to kind of see when we would be working on each. Each section of what they had proposed for us for this process. So, you know, but other than that, I thought the proposals were relatively comparable, except for the fact that 1 really is steeped in the knowledge of what we're looking to do. And I think that it would move us to. essentially use the funds we've already put in and the time we've already put in with these folks to our advantage, I think we'll be able to do a lot more with that team, not having to reiterate work that that team essentially has already completed. So that's my read on this, and I'm excited to hear what Director Hunt and my fellow Councilors think about the two proposals.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Director Hunt. My one question, as it's almost certain that this project will go, you know, 18 months, it'll at least be six months in this fiscal year and 12 months in the next, maybe even a little longer. Did we answer that question with just the amount appropriated in this fiscal year, or we expect also the potentially unexpected appropriation in the upcoming fiscal year? And also, I know there maybe was some money on your side of things that we were maybe going to use.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And we're already halfway through this fiscal year. So yeah. Yeah. Got it. Great. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: So just to understand the process, next step, and I'll make a motion once we've kind of agreed to it. is the idea that you want all of us to fill this out and send to you, and then you can say, OK, everybody rank this one more than this one. Do you think the president and I should submit one and you should submit one? We could come back next week. We could, conceivably, we could report this out to the regular meeting and have it on the agenda. If we wanted to make a formal recommendation to you, I think whatever you think is the most procedurally.
[Zac Bears]: OK, we need this for the file.
[Zac Bears]: It sounds to me like the will of the council is clear. I think the motion would be, I think just for procedural sake, and Fiona did mention this to me as well, just we need to have documents in the record if there are questions, you know, that I would make the motion that the president and the vice president work with the director to complete any procedural steps necessary to to open up the price bids, and then we can make.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: So motion for the president, vice president, and PDS director to serve as the selection committee and authorization to negotiate based on the price proposals.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, yeah, sure. Based on the discussion of the council at the December 6. 6, 2023, Committee of the Whole meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Yeah, I think I'd enter negotiations based on the price proposals. I think on the edit, that would make. Hang on. Let me do that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I just think it might be helpful, I know this is kind of more for specific questions, but if possible, if Attorneys Everett and or Stein could give a general framework of what state law is around private ways and how that impacts the city. I think that would be a good starting point just to understand maybe what we can do, what we can't do, and then what is more within our discretion as a city by policy or ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I had two questions. One was along those lines. So it sounds like we're going to have a website where people can go, if I live on a private way, here's the law. This is what the city does. This is what the city doesn't do. Those are the expectations I should have for service provision on a private way.
[Zac Bears]: I think that'd be great. I think it'd be great to put links to the different various meetings that you mentioned. I know police have had some engineering. We've had a few. I think linking out those would be great on that website. To Councilor Karibello's point, would maybe a one-page version of that eventually be mailed out to all the private residents that we have, that we know of? I think we can keep it on the table and talk about it.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, good. Yeah, I think that would be, I do agree that that would be good. I mean, you know, it's not going to reach everybody even. if we do that. But I think there's some value there.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. And I think that's really the key thing. Right. It's what are the expectations of the people. who are purchasing properties. I mean, obviously you have people who live on the properties as Councilor Caraviello said for a very long time. And that's one thing, but as properties turn over, I think it's important for residents or future residents who are purchasing those properties to understand that you're not getting the same level of service that you're getting on a public way. And I understand the argument, everyone pays the same taxes, everyone should get the same thing. I live on a state road, right? There's a lot of state roads in the city where we don't get the same level of service or comparable services as people on city roads. I actually have a specific gripe about big sweep that I'm going to come to you with later, which is. My zone and the DCR zone keep getting scheduled at the same time in the fall, so there's nowhere to park anywhere.
[Zac Bears]: And it's not just for me, but for the whole neighborhood, because I know the main idea of it is we don't do the main roads, we're doing the side roads, so people can move to the main roads and then move back. But I think that's just a great example of there are disparate levels of service because of who has jurisdiction over certain ways. And there's basically three levels of jurisdiction. There's a lot of city-controlled public ways. There are state-controlled public ways. And then there are private ways, which are, as our attorneys have noted, controlled by the abutters of those ways, the people who live on those ways.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Just in terms of the cost, I just, you know, since we talked about this last October, I want to just bring it up. I think we're talking at least a couple miles of private ways in terms of length, but I think the number that we talked about was if not tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars would be needed to bring all the private ways up to the state necessary to be accepted by the public.
[Zac Bears]: You know, I think, too, in terms of things that could maybe go and I don't want to overload now this website that, you know, will eventually be created this page on the website. But I think also some sort of link to this is how you can organize your neighbors to try to bring your street up to the level, you know, if they want to spend the money so that they don't have to be responsible for it in the future, it seems like that may be the direction that maybe some folks are going. I don't know if you'd ever get everybody on the street to agree, but it does seem like, given all of the discussion around this, that it could be possible for residents to organize themselves and pitch in the money to bring streets up to the standard to be accepted. And then once we accepted them, then they would be public ways and then they would be streets that would be invested in by with public money. But I think that that kind of. resource, just making sure that resource is available would be good.
[Zac Bears]: But even just those three bullet points that you just said, right? If you want to do this, you're going to need to organize your neighbors. You're going to probably need an attorney. You're going to need to raise funds. I think just making it clear what the process is, if folks ever want to go down that road.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: And speaking of that, I think I have a question for Attorneys Everett and Stein, which is just how does the subdivision control law, or I don't know the exact term, play into what the city can do? Because it seems to me that there, you know, in certain neighborhoods, there were a lot of subdivisions and that's why a lot of our private ways were created. And I was just wondering if that plays any specific legal role differently than the parts of mass general law that we've already talked about.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. On that front, does the city have the ability to require that private ways built through the subdivision process be built to the standard that they could be accepted as public ways?
[Zac Bears]: Got it.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. That makes sense. I mean, it, there's not much land left to be subdivided. So I don't think it's going to be a huge problem, but it does.
[Zac Bears]: And it sounds to me, Tim, like you're saying that the subdivision rules and regulations meet the standards for acceptance for the public way.
[Zac Bears]: Right, but we're not allowing people to subdivide and build substandard private ways at this point.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. Because I just think, you know, obviously the last thing we want to be doing is compounding the mistakes that have, you know, not that it's the mistakes of any of us, it's mostly mistakes made by people who made choices 100 or 50 years ago. We certainly don't want to keep doing it.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Interesting. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Just want to say thank you to attorneys Everett and Stein as well as Commissioner McGibbon for the meeting and to my colleagues. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, vice president bears is present. I'm in the office next door. He's in the office.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Emily, just so I can clarify this as well, this is an overlay, so the existing zoning still exists in the area. Seeing the nod is correct. And so we, Alicia, if I'm misremembering this, please let me know, but we passed a PDD for the property on Mystic Valley Parkway, or was it just a zoning change?
[Zac Bears]: Muzz zone, right, okay, got it. And so, yeah, so I was just noting that some of the properties that you noted as more likely to see change. We've actually already seen potential proposals or requests for zoning changes on them. And this is an overlay. It wouldn't change it or affect those. It just allows, yeah. So cool. Great. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: maybe just said a slightly different way, many of these units already exist, right? Like that, you know, essentially of that 6,500, I don't know what the number is, and you guys may have calculated, I would bet there's probably a couple, 3,000, maybe even more than that already in that zone. So, yeah, I think that's just a helpful clarification.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, and not to belabor the point, but Danielle, if you could just explain a little more why do we have to get the existing inclusionary zoning reassessed for viability. Is that a condition specifically of the MVTA Communities Act?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I mean, and that I understand. I've heard of that. I've heard of communities using inclusion areas as a barrier to construction. Obviously, there's some political benefits there, maybe in different areas. I don't know, it's just, I'm interested to see, I'm interested, I think, as we go through the process in this broader sense of looking at the zoning and aligning with the comprehensive plan, obviously inclusionary is gonna be important. And I'm kind of interested to see what the economic feasibility analysis says, not so much for this purpose, but for that purpose. So yeah, but thanks for answering the question.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, madam president. Thank you, attorney Stein. I just think to me, I feel like we've answered a lot of these questions already. And we, we came up with this ordinance. Basically, to me, the goal of this ordinance is to say in the city right now, we feel comfortable allowing one day licenses and special event licenses. And we don't want that to have to come before the council every time we're being those are being asked for. And I think that's basically the policy we're trying to implement. And then beyond that, I don't think we wanted to make any changes beyond that. But essentially, just to say, food trucks are welcome for events. They're welcome for single day activities. They have to go through the Board of Health to ask for those, and that's essentially the city's policy on food trucks. I don't want to speak for my other colleagues, although I'm seeing some nodding heads. So I think that's essentially the spirit of what we have put forward, and that's what this draft reflects. And I guess my question and feel free to answer after other colleagues have spoken, is just how do we take what we have drafted here, which I think we all believe reflected that general consensus, and turn that into something that fits the framework that you outlined where some of that, basically what I'm hearing is some of what's in this ordinance should be in the Board of Health Regulation. I don't really have a problem with that, but that's basically my understanding of the scope, and I personally didn't want to go beyond the scope of that general kind of those boundaries. So I'll leave it there. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Turnstein, through you, Madam President. I guess just, I'm just a little confused as to what our next steps are here. It seems like we have a draft that we believe generally reflects the policies that we want to have for a food truck ordinance right now. how much, I guess my question is to you just based on your review of this draft, how much of this needs to be changed or what sections need to be moved out into the Board of Health regulations for us to move forward? Because I'll be honest, I thought we were basically gonna do some light legal review and then approve this ordinance. I didn't think we were going back and diving in really to any major questions at this stage. So I guess just where are we going? you know, to me, I mean, if the question is that we don't feel like the Board of Health should be off, should be picking the location, I mean, I think that the applicants are picking the location and the Board of Health is saying yes or no. And then we have this section nine here, which is all mobile food vendors wishing to sell food from public property, including any public street, sidewalk, playground or park must obtain permission to do so from the city department having jurisdiction over that property. So to me, that makes it pretty clear. If you want it in a park, you have to go to the Parks Commission, or at least the Parks Department. If you want it on a public way, that would probably be the DPW. So I guess I'm just not clear here. It seems to me that the two outstanding things are there's a question over how much of what's currently in this ordinance should instead be part of a Board of Health regulation, and the section should point towards that. I'm guessing that's maybe most of Section 6. And then it sounds like, I don't know if Director O'Connor has an opinion on it, or if you do, Attorney Stein. that some other entity within the city administration should be involved in the siting of the location of these food trucks. But other than that, are there other issues with this current ordinance that I'm missing so far from our discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. I have two things. First, on the subject at hand, I think my motion would be to take this draft and put it in whatever form you believe is necessary to best affect its passage. I don't know what to say beyond that. You know, we had we had a draft, we thought we were going down the path that we should be going down best practice. And now we're kind of at the moment where we thought we were pretty much done with this. And now we're being kind of told that the form and legal compliance of what has been drafted is not accurate. So I mean, really, it would just be to me. for council and relevant departments to sit down and take this draft and reformulate it, package it into whatever it needs to be packaged into so that we can pass it. My second question in terms of streetways may go a little bit outside this, but I'm just a little bit surprised. Is it your opinion that whenever the city is hosting any sort of event using the public ways that the city council should give permission for that event to occur?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Okay. And so just when we were talking earlier about the public way, it's because we feel like food trucks fall into the archaic kind of language that some council passed many years ago around not having like fruit sellers on sidewalks.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: No, go ahead. Sorry. I cut you off. My apologies.
[Zac Bears]: Right, no, and that makes sense. And that's certainly what we want this to be. I just was, I was, you know, we often close public ways for events that are city hosted and the city council does not vote on the closing of those public ways. And I just wanted to make sure that those acts were not in conflict with our city ordinances separate from this discussion specifically around food trucks.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Then I would make the motion at this time that legal counsel and the board, the health director, the interim economic development director, and any other relevant parties that the administration sees necessary to be part of this process, essentially take this draft ordinance that we've written and come back to us with their recommendations for amendments to the city ordinances, as well as the draft board of health regulation based on this, based on this document, because that sounds like it'll solve all our problems. I'm not 100% sure, but it sounds like that would address the issues.
[Zac Bears]: Do you need me to repeat the motion first? If I could just get Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, make recommendations to amend the ordinance and to create a board of health regulation that reflects the content of this current draft or the content or intent.
[Zac Bears]: To be finished solid waste as well, that's basically what we did with solid waste.
[Zac Bears]: I think so.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I know, we're constantly doing things, all these things that we do all the time.
[Zac Bears]: Right. I mean, just specifically on this topic, I mean, I would think that if a food truck wanted to come for a day to a brewery and put their truck there, that's one thing. If they wanted to come 180 days or 365 days, That would not be something that we were interested in. I don't think I think it was to me. It would still fall under this kind of concept of the one day or special event permit license. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to keep the paper committee and adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: This was on commissions, and we've met on drafts for Youth and Gender Equity Commission's starting phase, so motion to approve.
[Zac Bears]: Madam president motion to suspend the rules to take papers two three dash four four five two three dash four five oh and two three dash four five one under out of order.
[Zac Bears]: That would be the grant of location followed by the elections.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, that's great.
[Zac Bears]: If I could just engineer we're tall. Thank you. And my understanding is in this case because it's brand new In this case we would feel that going milling curb to curb right would undermine what we've just Right, right. So you're gonna do that. But then the square footage that they otherwise would have been responsible for we're gonna get repaid somewhere else I'd love to take it if we can Elm Street Yeah. Yeah. I just want to make sure, cause that sounds like it, that should be, that seems fair to me. So.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. An engineer should we amend the conditions here to reflect the additional paving that we were just so graciously told that the National Grid would like? Do you have suggestions we amend number five to reflect that? Do you feel like we need to change? Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, great. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Just I would move to amend condition five to reflect that National Grid will, you know, pave another portion of road in the city based on the square footage of what they would have paved curb to curb.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: I have a motion to approve as amended pending the six day public comment period.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, could we read Councilor Scarpelli's paper and join it with this one?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I could go through everything, but then I would leave nothing for my fellow councillors. But there was a litany of procedural errors and issues with the administration of this election, many of which I personally believe would not have occurred had the department been fully funded as this council requested and had the department not had staff turnover as this council also requested. There's a listing here, the ones that I really want to bring to light right now that I'm sure my fellow councillors will talk about other issues. Last election, November 2022, the state election, the city also released incomplete, unofficial results that did not include, to my knowledge, early in mail voting. I don't know if that's what happened last Tuesday, but incomplete, unofficial results were once again released to the public. We had been told, as we asked for an update on the previous election, that this would be fixed. It was clearly not fixed. folks were here for up to at least four hours after polls had closed, maybe even longer than that, trying to fix an issue that shouldn't have been an issue. I just want to put that out there that left a lot of folks in the community concerned about how ballots are being counted, etc., having a complete tally and accurate unofficial results. I also just want to put out there that Again, incorrect information was given to voters both by mail and at polling locations. Incorrect information as to the date that mail ballots should be returned and a sheet went out that was for the previous year's election. That should not have happened. And folks were being told that they could not bring materials into the booths to assist them or provide guidance to them while they were voting. And that's against the state voter bill of rights. So again, that's just a couple of the things that I want to bring to bear. I know other folks have other things they want to bring to bear. I just think it is a serious issue when we need. I don't believe that any of these issues resulted in an outcome. that is different from what the outcome should have been. However, we need to have beyond reproach trust in the process. You can't have mistakes like this. You certainly can't have series of mistakes and errors like this because perception is reality to a lot of folks. And there's going to be people who won't believe anything that I'm saying forever about this. And that's a shame. We need to have full trust of as many people as possible in this community and the absolute and unimpeachable integrity of the electoral process and errors like these hurt that mission. So I hope that we will get very quick guidance and explanation as to why things happen the way they happen, and quite frankly, very quick action from the mayor to make sure that they don't happen again. And I think that action needs to come, not just in reporting to us what went wrong and how they're gonna do better next time, because that's what they did last time. We got a report about how we're gonna do better, and then a lot of the same things happened again. So it's an office that needs to be funded and needs to be staffed appropriately so that you don't have errors like this occurring. Thank you, Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I'll be briefer, because you basically just made my point. We voted in the spring of 2022 to adopt a piece of state law that modernized the system and moved us from the clerk and registrar voters to a formal elections commission. The intent of this body was that we would have an elections department with a director that would be at least as well staffed as it was previously. Under the clerk-registrar-voter system, you had the full-time clerk, three full-time staff in the elections office, as well as the full-time elections coordinator for much of the year. Then you also had the volunteer board of registrars. That was an oversight body. We moved to the Elections Commission and the budget came back. We went from five, essentially five full-time staff, to two and a half. Right? We went, we now have two full-time staff, one 20 hour a week, halftime person. That position is not even filled because nobody wants it. It doesn't make sense to have a 20 hour a week position. You had a ton of work of this election then fall on election commissioners who are not supposed to be running the election. They're supposed to be certifying results, overseeing it. They're not supposed to be in the nitty gritty. I mean, the last people in the office were the elections manager and the elections commissioners and LHS, which is the service the state uses. Why are the elections commissioners cleaning up this mess at the 11th hour? That should be what the staff is. Staff, you should have me fully staffed, so you're never in that position. The commission is an oversight authority. They're not meant to be working. And I just want to be working staff. And basically, I just want to be really clear here. When you basically cut the staff in half and then you try to backfill with volunteers or poll workers or temporary workers, it's not gonna work out. And we were very clear about that from the get-go. There's an election in 14 weeks. There's an election in March. There are four elections between the one we just had, including the one we just had in next November. As the president just said, elections are more complicated than ever. They're more frequent than ever. They require more resources. And instead, it seems that the choice was made that this was a place where we could find cuts and save money. Now, I think we all know my position that the city budget is massively underfunded. I don't think the place you start finding money is in the elections department. When the council explicitly voted to modernize and fund the department because elections are getting more complicated, and requiring more staff time and requiring more attention, not less. So even if we get accountability, even if there's changes of whatever kind, even if we get a report that says, here's all the things that we did wrong and we're gonna do them better next time, it's not gonna get fixed unless the department is fully funded, staffed and staffed competently. And that needs to happen. So this council has been saying that the whole reason we tried to do this process was to get us there. We did what was within our authority. to make that happen. And then, as President Morell said, the follow up wasn't there. The actually funding and appropriating and implementing this modernization process fell flat. And we're seeing the results this year, in addition to the November 2022 election, where there were some of the similar mistakes that we saw this year happened as well. So, you know, all this council can do at this point is put forward resolutions, and then, as Councilor Scarpelli said earlier, approve the appropriations when they come down, because if they had come down, I'm sure we would have held a special meeting to approve anything to get the additional surge resources in. The call never came, and we don't have the authority to make appropriations. So that side of things needs to be addressed as well. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Rick lost an election, she's not running again. So it's not all of us have a personal financial interest.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, so not all of us, sorry, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve as amended.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you guys for pulling this together. I know It has been a bumpy road with the state process, and I can appreciate that. I just want to kind of put this in the context of the work that we're hopefully going to be talking about hiring someone to work with us very soon, since I think the procurement, the RFPs are due by Thursday, and I'm waiting for the second phase of our zoning work. It's my understanding that this is what we need to get into compliance with the law by the deadline that the law requires us to be in compliance by. But as we move through the process of looking at the zoning, we could potentially go more in depth on that area, additional changes, look at this district and potentially make adjustments to this district through that process. I just wanna make sure that's correct and that's your understanding as well.
[Zac Bears]: Arlington just passed theirs, I think.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thank you. And I just wanted to put that forward just to say that this is not the end all be all here. And we have discussed extensively that this council is planning to conduct an extensive public process over the next 18 months to two years on rezoning the community. I think there is no public process that will satisfy all people. I do think that doesn't mean that we can't make and even better effort than we are able to do with the resources that we are appropriated by the mayor to reach as many people as possible. But I'm really looking forward to the deep work that we're going to be doing together in partnership. And I say all of that because I'm super excited for it. I do wanna say, I wish we had seen something or had a meeting on this a little sooner, not necessarily on the draft, but just on the law itself. And I know we've had, did we?
[Zac Bears]: No, you're not to contradict you. No, no, no, I take the contradiction.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So that was like right after it passed. I think we should have checked it in between. And I don't put that blame on any one party. Obviously, I forgot that meeting two years ago too. And George just called me a slacker if anyone couldn't hear it. But no, you know, we're just, we're good friends. But I just, I'm really excited for that partnership, and I appreciate the work that your office has done on this, and worked through an incredibly difficult landscape of changing rules and regulations, and a change in the entire gubernatorial administration from the folks who passed this, and they even renamed the office that was working on it with you, I think, and reorganized it, so I know that's been really difficult. And I appreciate that we'll be able to come back and look at this again. And even though that this is what the law requires, that you've been thoughtful about making sure that what we actually want in that area is also still possible.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to suspend the rules to take paper 23447.
[Zac Bears]: April 23-447, November 9, 2023. To the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council, Medford City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, Carr Park Phase II Grant Resolution, dear President Morell, and members of the City Council, I am excited to share that the City has been awarded a $1 million Land and Water Conservation Fund grant. You're going to? For Phase 2 of the carpark renovation, the City has also been awarded $1.5 million in federal earmarked funding through the Department of Energy, with the support of Representative Clark. Carpark Phase 2 consists of two subportions, deemed Phase 2a and Phase 2b. The total cost of Phase 2a is $2,015,000 and was proposed to be funded by the LWCF grant and ARPA funding. The LWCF grant requires that the City Council pass a resolution accepting the grant and acknowledging the dedication of the property as parkland. The grant also requires that the full funding for projects be appropriated upon acceptance of the grant. The enclosed drafted resolution addresses these requirements. The grant will then reimburse a $1 million portion of the appropriation. Phase 2B of the project has a total cost of $3 million. The federal earmarked funding requires a one-to-one match of non-federal funding to the award. Please note that LWCF is a federal grant program administered through the state and therefore cannot be used to match funds. I respect the request and recommend that Phase 2B be funded with $1,385,000 in ARPA funds. The City, spearheaded by Planning, Development and Sustainability, is exploring additional funding sources to complete the $115,000 deficit in funding. There is significant community support for open space and recreation in Medford and the City's commitment to accessibility. Broad community outreach has been performed to create inclusive, comprehensive vision for Carr Park, and there is a strong community passion and investment in the completion of this project. In summary, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body adopt the enclosed resolution to accept the grant for phase 2A of the car park renovation and authorize a loan order request of $1 million to the project. As stated in the resolutions, the LWCF grant will reimburse $1 million on the completion of the project. In addition, I respectfully request and recommend that the total of $2.4 million in ARPA funding be allocated to phase 2 of the project. $1,015,000 of which will go towards Phase 2A, and $1,385,000 of which will go towards Phase 2B. The LWCF grant for Carr Park requires that a copy of a certified boat be sent to them by December 1st. I hope that these requests have been submitted with sufficient time for the Council to review and meet this important deadline. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. Enclosures. Am I reading this whole thing too? I appreciate the confidence of my colleagues. A loan order to appropriate funds for the implementation of phase two of the car park renovation. Thank you, Councilor Collins. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion passes. I will defer to Amanda Centrella who definitely wanted to sit here and listen to me read the rest of that at 10 10 p.m. Amanda.
[Zac Bears]: Any Councilors want to hear what's in phase two regarding the scope of the project? Councilor Collins does.
[Zac Bears]: It'll be a constant reminder of what we're missing. Yes, approval for first reading on the loan order. Right, first reading. Councilor Scarpelli. I do have a question about that. Maybe to Director Hunt. They want a response by December 1st.
[Zac Bears]: We treat loan orders, and bond counsel has requested that we treat loan orders as ordinances. We could waive the readings.
[Zac Bears]: Which one was that? OK.
[Zac Bears]: But I can, so if we could, we'd have to advertise it in time to take it up for third reading on the 28th for you to get on the 28th and we would
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think though, in terms of signing I think we should check in offline and make sure, because we don't have a solicitor, we've been mailing things to KP Law to sign on behalf of the city solicitor, which is obviously something we would not like to be doing, but it's where we are at. So if we need their signature on a piece of paper, we don't. We won't? I think we, okay. I feel good about that. I think we should double check in on it just to make sure that we don't need someone from KP Law to sign this, but that's two weeks away, so.
[Zac Bears]: They're just literally signing ordinances as city solicitor. Right. And that's just it's a part of the formal process to have on that brief paper.
[Zac Bears]: OK. So I have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli to approve for first reading, seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative. None of the negative one absent motion is approved for first reading.
[Zac Bears]: I will turn it back over to the president.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I just want to thank my colleagues for putting this on the agenda. And just echo all the comments that have been made. I know a lot of my trans friends are feeling very afraid in this environment, in this country, where we see all this active and successful legislation, never mind the media campaigns and just the general what I would deem to be relatively violent things that are said on a regular basis about transgender people. And I just think it's important that when we see things like that, when we see the so much evidence of those things happening right here nearby, that we speak up and say that it's not right. So thank you for putting these on and I'm happy to support this.
[Zac Bears]: Vice Mayor Barras. Thank you, Madam President. I think this is a Another term that you commonly hear used that this is trying to address is the puppy bills issue, where you have a very inhumane conditions of breeding of dogs for commercial sale. And just to make sure that our community and the businesses in our community, although I'm sure that. folks are doing their due diligence that we haven't on the record, that they are not in any way participating in those kind of puppy mill supply chains. So thank you for co-sponsoring this and leading on this. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Stretch code for third reading.
[Zac Bears]: My condolences go out to the family.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I appear and I'm apparently one of the few people who made it all the way through Bedford High School without having him as a teacher and without having a really much direct experience with him at all. And the amount of communication that I've gotten from folks in the community saying, did you hear this news? And the stories that I've heard and the stories that folks have shared, I think that's a testament to the fact that even though I only knew about Mr. Lazzaro through the stories of others, that I knew so much about him and that people contacted me in such a big way. So my condolences are with the family, the generations of students that he educated who are thinking about him and also celebrating the great moments that they had with him as well. And I've had a small part in that over these past few days that it was entirely unearned, and I'm grateful for it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, Madam President, motion to take paper 23-023 off the table and approve for third reading.
[Zac Bears]: This is adopting the state's green building code, yes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm like the rest of you phonies. A solar magnate, George Scarpelli. He wants me to join, but then we wouldn't have anyone to vote on solar.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: press the button, because we want to make sure you're heard at the late hour.
[Zac Bears]: I was just about to bring up that about 15 years ago was when I picked up a sousaphone and played the fight song for the first time. And I would challenge anyone here to sing the, you know, we don't all know the lyrics, but I can sing you the fight song right now. It's playing in my head.
[Zac Bears]: See, I was playing an instrument. It's the best. But I just want to put out there, and Nicole, President Morell's losing a little bit. You have a baby at home. Let's keep talking.
[Zac Bears]: So you know, it was worth it. But I just want to say to that 15 years ago was the first time I played it. And if this season's team has broken my 15 year curse, I'm very much appreciative of it. So thank you guys so much. And thank you, Chris.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chris.
[Zac Bears]: Motion passed. Meeting adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for placing this on the agenda. Um, you know, we all know Henry and Evelyn we've worked with. Henry, especially in the government capacity as now our chair of our Elections Commission, but formerly as a leader of the Medford Democratic City Committee. And we know, I always get calls from him, sometimes during meetings, usually after, to comment on what's going on in the city. But also in addition to their devotion to Medford, and our community here in Medford, I think their devotion to the ARC and to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities across the Boston area, across the state is well-known as well. And that's not all that either of them do. So I think it's great that they're being honored and I'm glad that we can have a resolution recognizing the great work that both Henry and Evelyn do. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. We are seeing, and I'm hearing from residents, just the sheer amount of cut-through trips now cutting through on Willis Ave in between Main Street and Mystic Ave. just a high volume of cars, high speed, sometimes such a high volume that it's not high speed, but it is really dangerous for our neighborhood streets to be being used as through ways and thoroughfares. Residents have had some suggestions. We're working on the microphone system, I swear. But, you know, essentially people are using Willis Ave either instead of using Main Street or using Mystic Ave, they're using it to get through from Main Street to Mystic Ave or Mystic Ave to Main Street. So there were some suggestions. A, the residents are interested in what the city's general plan is in the area to have traffic try to stay on streets like Harvard. you know, Hancock and others. I have communicated with the Director of Traffic and Transportation about this. And he said that it is a difficult situation, but that he's looking into some of these solutions. Additionally, I think design changes like speed tables and potentially other design changes could discourage the cut through traffic and discourage the apps from directing people down those roads. So I would ask for my colleagues support for this motion to refer this to the Traffic Commission so they put it on their agenda. and get back to us and the residents about what our plan is for the area of South Medford that is facing these issues. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, my colleagues. I just wanted to add, uh, that one of the reasons that a resident raises concern with me was the kids walking to Ms. Tuck's school. And then also that I completely agree with my colleagues that this is a citywide issue. And it's one of the reasons I asked for a traffic flow study for the whole area is because even if we were to implement this on Willis, maybe it wouldn't work because it would impact other streets. So yeah, it's a serious issue. And I think it also points me towards Some of those improvements that we had heard from the folks who want to develop the large, the combined properties life sciences project on Mystic Ave, potentially some of the improvements to the area's physical infrastructure that they had talked about committing to, that could go to benefit this project, this issue. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilor Caraviello, for bringing this forward. The light sequence is certainly an issue at both of these locations. And I also wonder, you know, I think it would be helpful for DCR to potentially look at peak, having a certain sequence for peak hours and then a certain sequence for the rest of the time, you know, that might help to address the backups that are happening. Really, you know, I mean, obviously there's traffic and gridlock at many hours of the day these days, but the very serious backups are concentrated to two or three hours in the morning and the evening. So I would like to see something like that as well, but I'm not amending this and I second it and I support it.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to take paper 23-419 for third reading and 23-444 under suspension.
[Zac Bears]: Motion approves for third reading.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Um, I think, uh, you know, to Councilors here probably points both of them. Number one. I appreciate that. We've reiterated multiple times. You know that the ballots can't be used, but I actually appreciate bringing up the other issue. Um, which was the misprinted ballots because I believe all the ballots had to be reported. That's a significant cost to the city. Um, last budget, we were very clear. I think all of us on this council that we were last two budgets, but especially last budget that we were uncomfortable with the reductions in the elections department. Under the prior system before we moved to the independent elections commission system, we had as many as five staff working full time on elections. We now have two staff working full time on elections. I believe there's a vacancy that's unfilled. So if that were to be filled, it would be up to three. But that is a significant reduction in staffing, a significant reduction in a second pair of eyes to double check the ballot, a second pair of eyes to be able to supervise the distribution of mail ballots. And I think given the facts on the ground today are the same as the facts on the ground before. You can register later. Eventually, I'm guessing we'll end up with same day registration. We have mail ballots. We have early ballots. We have election day. We have essentially all year elections a lot of the time. You know, there's another election in March and there's an election in September and an election in November. So there's going to be four elections in the next 12 months. I don't think that merits a reduction in staff and a reduction in budget for the department that should be handling that. That's something this council has raised for two budget cycles consecutively, and I think we're seeing that it's an issue. So I hope that in the future budgets that that issue is addressed and the staffing for that department is at least made whole so that there's additional resources and capacity for the administration of elections here in the city.
[Zac Bears]: I don't have answers to all your questions, but- No, no, just the one on the bike path. On the bike path, yeah. Yes, sir. My understanding is that that did go out to bid and is going to be under construction next year.
[Zac Bears]: I agree with you.
[Zac Bears]: No, I hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I'm done. No, no, no, no. We got to give that back. We got to give it back, Larry.
[Zac Bears]: It's real.
[Zac Bears]: If it was fake, it would be better.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Bears. Motion to take paper 23-440 under suspension.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I also wanted to send my condolences to her family and also to her extended City Hall family. I know that her impact has far outlasted her retirement, that the vault in the clerk's office is dedicated in her name, and that she served over several clerkships, bringing a lot of consistency and passion to her role. So definitely thinking of her family and also thinking of all those who worked with her who are missing her today and for time to come. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to pass these records to Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: I'll accept that motion.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to join all reports of committees and approve after a short summary of each.
[Zac Bears]: We discussed the draft, the latest draft of the budget ordinance. At this meeting, we're gonna have further meetings on the budget ordinance. The structure that we came up with was deemed day 100, but we need to work on how long it will take to get to 100.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and thanks for answering my questions on this. Before, I just have one more. Is there anything with, because it's lining up right with the fiscal year, where there could be like late Probably coming on very late in the prior fiscal year that would be counted in the new fiscal year.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, of course, of course. And is it going to change the date at which we set the rate for the coming year?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you to my fellow Councilors for putting this resolution on. I definitely agree that celebrating you know, Italian American heritage in the city is so important. I like to think that we try to, each of us individually, maybe do it every day. That might just be me in where I shop and what I eat. But, you know, it's not just those little things. I think having something official is of value to everybody as well. So I would certainly support that. I just want to note that I'm on a collaboratively kick. And thank you, Councilor Scarpelli for bringing up collaboratively. Yeah, it's the best. It's the best.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, Madam President. I move to enter Executive Session pursuant to General Law Chapter 30A, Section 21A.3 to discuss strategy relating to pending litigation known as Commonwealth of Massachusetts DIA, Department of Industrial Accidents Case, City of Medford Employer, DIA Board Number 11989-22. Because I declare that discussing the matter in open session may have detrimental effect on the litigation position of the city, and with the council to return to open session, and also votes may be taken during the executive session.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to waive the remainder of the reading, if you could just summarize the recommendation of the Community Development Board.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just to spare you reading the actual ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you guys for presenting. Good to see you again. God, I can't remember when now. Between 12 and 18 months ago Councilor Caraviello, I were at a presentation by combined across the street for their large set of properties, met, met you guys there. And, you know, I, for what I'm seeing this as part of a more holistic larger project along the entire stretch. you know, the combined thing, they're changing paths midstream, which is, you know, there's a little confusion with that right now, but I'm hoping that they'll, that we'll be able to move that forward too. And we'll really see two large projects. I mean, your project and then a, quite frankly, much larger project across the street that really set a foundational note for what we want this corridor to look like. You know, comparatively, I think what they're gonna be able to do in terms of community benefits is, significant given the size and scale of their project, but it speaks to Councilor Collins' points around pedestrian safety, bike safety, transportation improvements, intersection improvements, looking at rights of way, addressing the horrific light timing that DCR and MassDOT have imposed on us there. And I really think, you know, That maybe you guys are going to be the first ones out, you know, we'll see where their process gets them. They have some environmental stuff, whatnot, that might take some longer time, but I really see this as setting a note for the corridor in a good way. I'm really encouraged by what you've presented. Obviously you've been through the public process, the meetings, the hearings, engaging with the public. And one of the biggest things that I heard at the meeting when we were talking about the much larger project across the street that Combined has proposed, was about how the fact that this being commercial being a commercial development being a nine to five workplace versus being housing and I personally have some misgivings about this thing that I'm about to say I'm not saying it's my position on the issue but that was of value to the residents in that community, some of them who showed up to the meeting. we hear a lot about expanding the commercial industrial tax base in the city. We hear a lot about unique development. I'm really encouraged that this council was able to pass a zoning ordinance that created a process that you guys were able to come through to get to this point. I think it's exactly the goal of the PDD that we passed, exactly the goal, development goals of this council has had, and I'm really encouraged. I know that change can be difficult, and that is just true across the board. It sounds like with your project, we're gonna have some further conversations about what that means, and then also, really going forward, we are going to have much larger discussions about this corridor with proponents of larger projects in the area that I think will mesh well with what you're proposing and be complimentary and align with what we're looking for. So really thankful that we were able to act as a council, propose reviewing our zoning for the first time in 60 years, go through an 18 month process to recodify our zoning ordinance past the PDD process and get to this point where this is now our second PDD in the last couple months moving forward. So we have a lot more work to do on zoning. I'll leave that for another conversation, but I'm strongly supportive of this. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, very few facilities.
[Zac Bears]: Uh, pending the six day public comment period.
[Zac Bears]: you, Madam President. Um, I think pretty self explanatory resolution. Um, but we did get some suggestions from our building interim building Commissioner Mr. 40 on ways that we could further improve the zoning ordinance to ensure that short term rentals are beating all the requirements of, uh, the zoning ordinance. So the main ones that I want to consider are actually making sure that folks are registering their units with the city so that we know where they are, and also requiring that the platforms issue a monthly report to the city. And that means that we will end up with that direct connection with the platforms to remove noncompliant listings such as the tent and port-a-potty listing, infamously, that was put up over the summer.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. This is just a follow up from our discussion at the last meeting that I'm formally submitting as a resolution that I would like the clerk's office to submit as a petition to appear on the next Traffic Commission meeting agenda.
[Zac Bears]: It's his thing. It's his thing. I should have put you on it. I should have, I should have put Chancellor Caraviello on it. If you want, do you want to, you want to be on it? Okay.
[Zac Bears]: So I was just looking through, uh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Madam President. What? Oh, great. Um, So, I was looking through MuniCode websites for other communities, as one does on a wonderful Thursday evening, and just noticed that a lot of communities have these documents put on MuniCode. Right now, you can't see traffic commission decisions and regulations. I think you have to go digging for them. Same with the Board of Health. We have a platform that is able to host those, and I think it would be great to have those up there as those are two you know, major sets of policies in our community that are set by boards other than this board. And I appreciate my colleagues' incredible support for my efforts.
[Zac Bears]: Well, nobody heard you.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to join all three committee reports and approve if you want to tell us what they were.
[Zac Bears]: And yeah, we held a meeting picking back up the draft Condo Conversion Ordinance, Councilor Collins is leading on it, and we sent several motions out to city departments for additional information and updates on the decisions that we are going to have to make about what will be included.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to take paper 23-417 under suspension.
[Zac Bears]: That is page 17. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: I was going to move to go into executive session pursuant to general law chapter 30 a section 21 subsection a subsection 3 to discuss strategy relating to the pending litigation known as DuPont versus city of Medford at all. It's in Milosec Superior Court. docket number CA number 1981CB01886, because I declare that discussing the matter in open session may have detrimental effect on the litigating position of the council and the council will return to open session.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to suspend the rules to take paper 23-419.
[Zac Bears]: Page 18. Page 18. Page 18. Page 18.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Bears. I'll just be brief. I sat down with Victoria and Alicia prior to our last meeting on this and then, you know, ask some questions during our committee of the whole meeting. And then I had some further questions and Victoria was. I was lucky that Victoria was able to answer some of these questions, and I had them included in everybody's packets. You can see here, there's bullet points on just some additional information that I still had as outstanding questions. I think the point is well taken that there have been a lot of plans for Medford Square over the past 30 years. I think we all know that the condition of Medford Square is basically a car-prioritized throughway between 93 and 16, makes it dangerous for pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers, and makes it incredibly uninviting for commercial activity. It's not an inviting place to walk to. It's not an inviting place to walk around. And if you don't have that, you're not going to have the kind of development and the kind of environment that we want to see development. I think we can all agree that we've had many happy days when Clippership Drive or Riverside Ave is closed down and we can all walk around and have Oktoberfest or another event. In any case, to me, this doesn't create any new revenue. It doesn't create anything new. It is, to me, essentially saying, If we want new growth in Medford Square, we need to improve the infrastructure in Medford Square. One of the main ways that we're going to do that is by working on the city-owned parking lots, which we've been looking to develop in a multitude of ways for a long time across multiple mayors and across multiple Medford Square plans. And this is actually a way that we are going to prioritize setting aside the funding to actually make those investments. And I think that that's important investments in the water sewer infrastructure in the right away. Um, with all due respect on the on the planning side of things, you know, Councilor Caraviello and I and dozens and hundreds and I think a certain thousands of men for residents were involved in the comprehensive planning process, um, to create the city comprehensive plan. One of the major elements of the city comprehensive plan, which was finalized last year. is this kind of development in Medford Square. So, you know, having the questions answered about A, you know, if we find that the DIF is a tool that isn't working, we can dissolve it. If we find that funds that are put into the DIF, we need to prioritize for general funding so that the council can make those votes. It really, to me, is why not try? Why not implement a tool that might actually get us where many councils and many mayors have failed for many years in terms of actually investing in Medford Square. So if it doesn't work. it's been made very clear to me that we can dissolve the diff and we can, if we need, if we're looking at funds being tied up in our very tight and difficult budget seasons, we can move those funds back from the diff to the general fund. So I think it's good to have a tool in law that actually focuses on making, focuses the city on making Medford Square a vibrant, community hub that it has been in the past. It certainly was before the construction of the highway and hopefully we can make it again. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I understand and respect the frustration. I think this is a step in the direction that we're talking about here. Part of the master plan document for the DIF talks about land consolidation, new roads, new rights of way, you know, we could be talking that. And if you look at the project, I said, you know, this is an outline of looking at money over 30 years. I agree that short term money that's in the chart is not much, but the medium term, the 10 year money, the 30 year money, talking about 10 million, maybe as high as 50 million, right? Like that's a serious money, especially if you're talking about using it over a period to pay for bond costs. You know, we talk about new rights of way, we could be, we could move clippership drive, right? We can move clippership drive. You can move. You can move. George has to drive. You could adjust city hall mall. You could build a new right of way here and increase access to the waterfront. Exactly what you're saying. This doesn't do that in a week. I completely agree. It doesn't do it in a year or two years. And it doesn't do it along the timeline that I would prefer. Right. I would like to have something in place sooner than 10 years or 30 years. Right. But this is a starting point. And that's really all I'm saying here. If it doesn't work and if we don't see it. We have the authority to repeal it. We have the authority to sweep the funds back. We have the authority to take a different approach. So I see this as giving the Council more power over the exact questions that we're all concerned about here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I think there's two things here, right? I'm not going to speak to who's leading on what, more than to say that I think this council is leading on development and planning and doing so directly in consultation with the office of development and planning development and sustainability. I think there's a couple of things. I think Wellington, to be honest, I think so far the Medford Square, the Wellington air rights, the Medford Square parcels, I think a little more coordination with the council on before RFIs go out and before that would be very welcome. I think on the flip side, you know, I wrote 12 pages of commentary that I forced a lot of people to read about the comprehensive plan that we spent two years working on. We have a tool in front of us. We don't have the whole toolbox yet, but I just don't agree that we don't have a blueprint. It's very clear from the two year process to develop the citywide comprehensive plan that is incredibly detailed. that there is a vision for where the city is going that includes the Mystic Ave corridor, that includes Medford Square. I mean, it's all about squares and corridors and about our neighborhoods. What we're talking about doing next is taking that vision and that blueprint and putting it into action through updating our zoning code. Another way that we can put that into action is this tool in front of us by creating a specific of money to support the things that are in the master plan for improving the infrastructure in Medford Square, but there's a blueprint that comprehensive plan is an incredibly detailed document that talks about where we want the city to go, what we want our corridors to look like what we want our squares to look like, and this is very much in line with that I spent a lot of time. in meetings around the comprehensive plan that included people who had a variety of different ideological and political backgrounds, different viewpoints on what development should look like. And I think we reached a good blueprint that moves us in the direction of significant growth. in a measured and reasonable way. And I think that's what we're talking about using tools to do. So I won't dispute, I've extended the metaphor, right? Tool, toolbox, now I've added blueprint. I won't dispute that the toolbox is not complete, but I think this tool serves the blueprint and that's why I support it. I think the real place where the rubber is gonna meet the road here, quite literally, is the zoning work that we need to do over the next two years. And I'm really looking forward to doing that because that's where we're going to take this larger comprehensive plan, the discussions of what should happen in squares and corridors. And we're gonna say, here's what the zoning map is now gonna look like in these areas. Here's what the building massing should look like in these areas. Here's what uses should be allowed and not allowed in these areas. Here's what additional density looks like that's going to be a discussion, but I think there's a significant road map there, and that's why I feel comfortable going ahead at this time. I'll second Councilor Collins's motion.
[Zac Bears]: I was just going to say that we did just have a presentation, extensive presentation on the project just last week. And if any residents are interested in the level of detail that we went into, those recordings are available from Medford Community Media, medfordtv.org.
[Zac Bears]: We have the votes. Please call the roll. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I'm interested in hearing from, um, the planning department and any other city folks online and our council. But I just have two quick questions. A Councilor dash. Um, one. the letter notes that you've received comments from offices. Have you received written comments from offices?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And then would all of you potentially be, you know, one of the questions here is the city sold land to the previous owner you know, from what my review was pretty, I think it was about $80,000 for the lot, kind of under, because of the restrictions, understanding that, you know, if that lot were fully developed, well, I know it's difficult land. I live on Fellsbury West up the street. I know it's not, you know, flat land, 48,000 square feet or anything like that, but conceivably, especially given the value of, land and housing today, someone could figure out a way to put quite a few number of units on that lot. I know that's not what you're asking for here, but it could be conceivable down the road. The restrictions were put on by the city in 2008 with that owner on the condition that there be one unit on a lot, one single family home. Would there be a consideration to making the three units deed restricted permanently affordable potentially?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'm not a lawyer. And I think on balance, the story and the explanation of why this would this request is coming before us certainly makes sense. I guess just more my question is, and you know, feel free to just keep it as a bug in your ear. And I'm sure there'll be a lot of other conversations with city departments and officials, but I hear what you're saying, maybe they don't qualify for the affordability restriction now. If it were possible to make it conditional that if the property were ever to be sold in the future, I don't know if it's possible to say that, put that condition on, that if there was a future sale that the units would be affordable after that point, something like that. I think that would be... hopefully a little more in line with the initial restriction while still fulfilling the purpose that the family would like to see. So just want to put that in as an idea. But other than that, I'll leave it as is and wait to hear from other councillors and from city staff.
[Zac Bears]: Well, that, that goes back to my question is, is what, you know, what happens after the fact, uh, maybe attorney Everett, you could, um, provide some guidance on that question. Is it possible to amend the restriction so that upon sale of the property, the units would be permanently affordable units? Is that possible?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, because that's, you know, I think that would be something that I would be interested in, because I think, you know, there's one question of you know, just adding housing stock generally, I think, you know, in this set of purposes, it makes sense, you know, to allow a change in this deed restriction to allow the three family to be built. In the future, I think we would want the building to serve similar purposes, which would be to serve people who need that kind of supportive housing, right? So that's what we're doing here for this family. I think in the future, we'd want that to continue for a future owner.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, I mean, to be quite frank, the deed restriction, if we lift the deed restriction now, the deed restriction was put in place to protect the public interest relative to the sale of public land. We now have a request to amend the deed restriction for a very compelling private interest. I agree it's a very compelling private interest. I think what we need to do is balance the public interest and the private interest to achieve the outcome of the private request of the owner of the property without completely, without a significant reduction in the protection of the public interest that the deed restriction had. I don't think that we tonight have the information that we need to do that. I don't, I mean, you know, we're all, we're delaying everything else to talk to lawyers. Maybe we should delay this one too. Well, you know. The deed restriction was put in place to protect the public interest. The purpose of it was that this land was supposed to be for one single family home, and we're trying to change the deal here, right? Now, there's a good reason to change the deal, but that was the deal. And that's also the risk the private owner took when they purchased the property with the deed restriction on it. So we should discuss that in good faith and in an open and honest way. And if part of the discussion here is how do we have a good public interest outcome that also achieves the private outcome that the interested party wants, I think that's the best course of action. I don't think that that is where we're going to end up if we just vote to accept the proposal without further discussion from the experts. So I personally would ask for, I have a third idea. There's three motions on the floor. There's a motion to approve. There's a motion to have committee of the whole. the planning department, legal counsel for the city and legal counsel for the petitioner, sit and meet and see if there's an agreement that can be made that satisfies the interests of all parties involved. And then we can discuss that proposal when it comes back before us. So that's the motion that I'll put on the floor.
[Zac Bears]: My motion was for council for the city, the planning department and council for the petitioner to meet to discuss the proposal and see if an agreement can be reached that could be presented to the council.
[Zac Bears]: I guess, what's your timeline? I'd be willing to pick a date certain, but I don't want to pick a date certain that doesn't work for everybody. I just asked to do a bunch of work.
[Zac Bears]: Could we ask director Hunt and attorney Everett what their timeline?
[Zac Bears]: Sounds like it would work for all parties involved. OK.
[Zac Bears]: Meet to reach an agreement.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, reach an agreement to present to the council and table to the date certain of October 24th.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank Councilor Scarpelli for bringing this forward. I know we discussed it the other week as well, and I've heard similar concerns from folks. So I really hope this gets addressed quickly. Through the chair to Councilor Scarpelli, I don't know if, sorry if I just may just spill your water. Given what you were saying, has there been a shift away, and given your expertise in this, has there been a shift away from turf back towards grass?
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate it. Thank you for that. Thank you madam chair. Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli. You know, part of my reason was I saw Leo Messi said he wouldn't play at a field. Right? So, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: So Vice Mayor Ferris. I just wanna clarify that we're specifically talking about the trucks going back to Everett. Yeah. And secondly, do we know the, do we know you were talking about commercial street, right? The seven, the 17 tractors, right. But the 17 tractors were on commercial street on the city, on the city. Is there any signage? I mean, I guess.
[Zac Bears]: I will. No, I've seen the trucks. I guess I'm just wondering if we could do a B paper here that We submit to the traffic commission that they put in, you know, essentially that that through the clerk that the council submits a petition to Alva Erickson to put on the traffic commission agenda to make it no parking no standing on commercial street between midnight and 6am or, you know, I mean I'm not I don't the hours I don't really care but
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I guess then it would be, I mean, we can name the list of streets now, but.
[Zac Bears]: I'll follow up with you after the meeting about something, thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Well, Councilor Scarpelli, I don't wanna, this is not good advice, I think, for anyone, but if you live as close to the highway as I do, even the rats don't wanna be there. So that's the one solution, I think.
[Zac Bears]: Question bears motion with the reading in favor of a short summary. Um I can do very quickly and then I'll turn it over to director Hunt.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Um, it does does mention solar in there. So, you know, it was surprised to me to hear that my fellow Councilor had joined the entrepreneurial world. Um, In any case, in January, this council passed a paper requesting that the city administration, specifically the planning development sustainability office, provide us with an ordinance to adopt the specialized energy code, which is part of the climate bill that passed the state house recently. I'll leave it there. I just want to say I'm really thankful to our climate planner, Brenda, and to Alicia Hunt and her office for getting this to us. for the mayor's office and KP Law team for reviewing this. I think this is good, and this is something that we've all been pushing forward to adopt to make sure that new construction in our city is based on the latest of the state's building codes and is doing as much as it possibly can to get us to our climate goals. So I will stop there to hear from our Planning and Development Sustainability Director, Alicia Hunt. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve for first reading.
[Zac Bears]: None. Motion to receive and place on file.
[Zac Bears]: It's a great opening for me to talk about revenue and be a broken record, but as I won't do it, but imagine what Kevin could do.
[Zac Bears]: Imagine what Kevin could do with more resources and more funding, and I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just, you know, I went back and reviewed quickly the discussions that we had and the minutes or the reports committee reports. This is done in the zoning record of the court vacation that. the committee report state, this will not affect maximum occupancy requirements. So I think either we need to change the definition because there was something that wasn't included. That was from Attorney Wabrowski who said that in that committee report from February, 2022. Either we need to do that or there's somewhere else in there that we need to make sure that the building department knows is for their maximum occupancy.
[Zac Bears]: It's zoning, so we'll have to go through. We'll have to figure that out.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, Senator zoning. Senator zoning actually.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I reviewed the records of the August 15th meeting and I found them in order and I would move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Thanks, Madam President. Yeah, so basically, we received back comments from the Community Development Board on change A. They did suggest a substantive change, which is to, we had recommended that the, or we had initiated a proposal where the council would be the special permit granting authority for a number of motor vehicle related uses and miscellaneous commercial uses, specifically in C1, C2 and I districts. This is designed to prevent the further proliferation of motor vehicle repair shops and car yards in Mystic Ave area and other commercial areas of the city where we're looking at other more significant uses than storage or repair of vehicles. So I'll come back to that one, because the CD board recommendation is a significant change. The second change is B, that's on page three. The recodification, that language that we passed had an unintended consequence of making a lot of properties nonconforming, where you have a single parcel with multiple principal structures on the lot. The CD board, did suggest a language change just to specify the districts where that issue is occurring, SF1, SF2, and GR zoning, but otherwise they accepted the proposed change. The third change is adding a second associate member to the Board of Appeals and clarifying term length. We passed a zoning change in early 2022 that did this, but then we actually overruled it with the recodification. So this is correcting us back to the language that we had passed for members appointments to the Board of Appeals and having a second associate member. There were a number of unintended referrals for papers to the Community Development Board. This is now the fourth one, number D. of lack of clear language. Basically a lot of these are we've had this new zoning recodification in place for now a little bit over a year, and the bodies that are going through it, the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Community Development Board are saying, here are some of the technical things that we think need to be updated. But essentially, we're referring papers to the Community Development Board that never needed to go to them. So there's a small technical change. The CDB did not change. Community Development Board recommendations don't change what we had proposed. The fifth one is number E, There was conflict between who is the special permit granting authority, and the Community Development Board recommended specific language to accomplish that objective. Number six, F, the language that we passed in 2022 created an extra requirement for a special permit for inclusionary housing that's not necessary, and the Community Development Board accepted the language changes that we proposed for that. G, the state agency that oversees housing changed its name this year from the Department of Housing and Community Development to the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities. Our proposed change just updates all of those references in the zoning. I think the CD board may have found one or two more. They slightly changed the language, just to make it more clear, but basically the same thing. And then a number of definitions were deleted from the zoning when we recodified it. Several pages, I think it's pages 10 through, yeah, the whole rest of it, I think, 10 through 21, and the CD board, agreed with all the ones that we included, and also found a couple other definitions that had been omitted from the recodification to include. So essentially, that's the summary. If we were to sever, I would recommend severing change A from changes B through G, or sorry, B through H.
[Zac Bears]: I would like to ask that Director Hunt and Planner Evans just question about the first change. Change A to the use table around motor vehicle related uses. It seems to me that that's the major substance of change in here from the Community Development Board recommendations, which is we had proposed that the council be the Special Permit Granting Authority for a number of these uses, and the Community Development Board has recommended that they be the Special Permit Granting Authority instead, and I was just wondering if you guys could speak to the Community Development Board's reasoning or rationale behind that recommendation.
[Zac Bears]: Is that a further question on that?
[Zac Bears]: Thanks for that, because I didn't quite notice that, but I'm guessing that's in the J, wholesale transportation, industrial uses, and then it looks like open storage under accessory uses. What was the rationale between, for going to the zoning board for some of them and the city board for others?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Yeah, I think in general, the intent here was not to allow these kind of uses by right. I like that you at the CD board came back and kind of noted some other specific uses that I think fall into a similar category as what we were looking at with the motor vehicle issue. in general, I'd actually, I mean, Councilor Caraviello proposed this, so I'd like to hear from him what he thinks about it being us versus the Community Development Board.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve pending the six day public comment period.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to suspend the rules to take in the following order papers to two dash four zero one two two dash four zero two two two dash four zero three. 22-395, the petition filed under public participation, 22-400, and 22-405. Two, three, sorry, I wrote two, two down, I apologize. All two, threes. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: There are a number of people here in the audience with us tonight, who are attending for those various papers.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: It's on page seven.
[Zac Bears]: Could we amend the motion to also waive the readings? Just waive the readings.
[Zac Bears]: We do have Teresa, our new CPC manager. I don't know if you want to say anything, Teresa.
[Zac Bears]: You just gotta, you gotta press a little. Yeah, there you go. You're good.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I put this paper on. There's also a paper on under public participation, which is the next item we're taking up, but maybe we could jointly have the conversation now. I don't know if Elliot wants to come up in a minute, Just one of the reasons I put this on is that this was something that's been a priority for me since even before I was elected. Short term rentals, you know, certainly have a limited place, I think, in the housing world. But what we're seeing is a proliferation of a lot of our housing stock being taken up by short-term rentals and being turned into profit centers. And we passed a zoning ordinance last year that put significant restrictions on short-term rentals, required registration, required them to pay a registration fee, and also limited their use, where if there is not an owner-occupant in the unit, And, you know, if there's an owner occupant renting out rooms, that's one thing, but if there's just a housing unit that's being taken off the long-term rental market and being used for short-term rentals, particularly where you basically have small hotels operating in our neighborhoods, unregulated, we ban that. However, Airbnb and Vrbo have not stopped listing properties that are doing that. We have had residents like Mr. Jockelson and others who have been reporting, you've probably seen them on various social media sites. I think there was someone who had a hot tub in a tent in their backyard that they were putting down as a short term rental. And that got immediately, you know, code enforcement went out they said that's, you can't do that and it wasn't allowed but the limited code enforcement resources we have in the city really mean that it's on the residents to report these situations. And even when they do report them, it takes some time to get some enforcement out there. I really think that we should be more proactive, I think we'd find a lot of rental units coming back onto the market that are currently being used as profit centers in this way, and that would help with our housing crisis. So, the two things I'm asking for are that there be more resources and requirements provided to code enforcement so that they can do their job more effectively, but also I do know that thanks to to to Mr. Jopelson and others that have informed me that other cities have had created direct liaison relationships with the major short term rental sites, which have allowed the city to report issues directly to them and have listings removed so that they can't be rented. So I think both of those solutions need to be explored quickly and implemented so that our zoning ordinance is being followed by these folks who are breaking the law right now. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I saw they passed something.
[Zac Bears]: And if you're not, you can only do it a maximum of 90 days a year. It's pretty strict. We went pretty strict on the first pass. I don't mind going and taking another look, but the most important thing is that the strict ordinance we have now be enforced.
[Zac Bears]: And if I could just, I just do want to reiterate Councilor Knight's point, which I tried to make clear in my resolution just prior to this. Two things are clear. I've talked I've been working with Elliot talking to code enforcement about this I've been hearing from other folks about You know different issues code enforcement goes out when they hear about it, but they Basically the way we're doing code enforcement city generally in the way that it's structured is not what it needs to be you know essentially The building departments code enforcement, and they're more focused on things like this and building inspection.
[Zac Bears]: And yeah, and that's what I'm that's what I'm getting at. Right? Like they're doing great. They're doing an awesome job. I'm talking to them directly about what they need. And you know, essentially, you know, they've been doing, there should be a code enforcement officer at DPW looking at stuff in the public way. The building department's been covering for that for a long time. I think we need to have a serious discussion about inspectional services and code enforcement in the city. What's the resource level? How are they collaborating? Which departments are doing each job? Because clearly, on this issue, I think we're about to hear another major issue about overgrowth and trash and issues in on Emory Street tonight, right? Clearly they don't have the resources and the support they need. The flip side of that is we can advocate, we pass the zoning ordinance, we communicate when we can, when we hear from a resident or we hear from code enforcement, we try to make those links. Actually funding or making a structural change to how we do inspectional services, only the mayor has the power to do that. Actually saying, hey, code enforcement, You know, we need to prioritize creating an Airbnb liaison, right? Only the mayor can do that. So does the mayor watch this?
[Zac Bears]: Right, and that's kind of why I'm making the statement I'm making is we've now put a resolution on, our resolutions generally get a response from the mayor. The point of this resolution is to say, hey, we need to make this a priority, it's our request, please respond and tell us when and how you're going to do it. Right now, all I can do is we can have another email or phone conversation with Dennis or Mike and we can- I'm gonna email the mayor next, but I'm gonna keep watching and annoying people until this house is shut down.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, exactly. And so, you know, that's what I'm saying. I want to be clear that we have our eyes on it. We've been working on this legislatively. We're going to be pushing for it. It's a partnership in a two-way street in terms of we can make the request, but the action has to come from the office of the mayor, because that's who runs enforcement and who supervises the staff of the city. So- Well, now that I've spoken to you, I will now go and try and pursue it there. Yeah, and I'm happy to help on that direction too. I would love to have a conversation with the council and the mayor and code enforcement about what should inspectional services look like. in the city as well.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I just want to add, I think on this specific one, you found the answer, which is we should just be saying directly to the company, you have to remove the listing.
[Zac Bears]: And that, that, that strips out the entire process. And then, you know, you have the people with the authority to make that from the city side who have the legal authority to have that enforcement happen. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I believe it's one large six-story building and then smaller outbuilding.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, can I go first?
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I wanna acknowledge what Mr. Paige Lieberman just said. I think it's not targeting people who use Airbnb. I think there's obviously cases and situations where there's need for people to have short-term accommodations. I think it's the question of, historically, until these app companies came in and said, oh, we're gonna make a premium off of people's homes, renting them out, people stayed at hotels, which have regulations, they have specific security requirements, taxation requirements, there is a suites, I think it's a town place suites or some Marriott suites in Medford that has a kitchen and some bedrooms in it, right? Like, but while there are certainly reasonable and valid use cases, I think when you have a there are people renting single family homes for $1,000 a night. If you can make $360,000 a year, and maybe you won't rent it out every night, but say you rent it out half the nights, you can make $180,000 a year, why would you ever rent it long-term to a long-term tenant? You just wouldn't. I mean, I wouldn't do that, but if you're just buying property to speculate on and seek profit motive, if you can make $180,000 a year versus $40,000 a year, you know, someone who has that profit motive or chooses to speculate on the land and housing in our community. since we don't regulate it, they're gonna do that. And I just think that's, it's not about targeting the people who use Airbnbs, it's targeting the people who are buying housing and land in the city and turning it into micro hotels in neighborhoods that are unregulated because they can make an extra $100,000 a year off of land that should be used for people to live here, to live here. And that's really more where I'm coming from on it. I'm not one to, Be mad that people are having fun. I like having fun too. So I just don't think that the landlord making $100,000 a year in profit by taking a housing unit away from a family who wants to live here should be able to do so. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Anne, for coming down and bringing this forward and for working with Councilor Caraviello on it. I just want to propose an amendment to just add the traffic commission, because I believe the parking on Boston Ave is city-owned, so it would be the jurisdiction of the traffic commission, and a petition could go before them soon, and they could put the markings and signs out. I mean, it would be under their authority to put that out, so.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I've seen that, and they're not paying.
[Zac Bears]: And the reason I just want to add the Traffic Commission is because there's the two things here. One is the Traffic Commission could mark those as handicapped spots at their next meeting, changing enforcement and requiring enforcement that, you know, we've had a lot of discussions about that tonight, haven't we?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I think this has kind of become the theme of the night, so I'm happy to just kind of quickly move through this resolution. We can move to the specific resolution that Councilor Caraviello filed. But really, the intent here is just to say that we need to have a discussion about code enforcement and inspectional services in the city, getting them the resources they need, putting that under the correct structure, because there's just tons of civil code violations happening all the time that are, you know, either going unaddressed or are overwhelming code enforcement or, you know, a lot of them are getting reported by residents. So if there isn't a resident in a place who knows how to report something, or doesn't have access to the systems or is new to the area, maybe that thing just never even gets to the people who can enforce it. And there's also the specific issues that I've definitely had communications from and have annual communications from folks in the Hillside neighborhood as it relates to Tufts University students and landlords. So that's the intent of this resolution. Happy to move through it and have the discussion that folks are here to have on Councilor Caraviello's resolution.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, I just want to say to the points that you made, you know, You've been fighting the same fight for a long time. You haven't seen the enforcement. It's because the enforcement hasn't been funded the whole time. And that's fundamentally the question. This council doesn't have the ability to increase funding for anything by a single dollar. All we can do once a year is cut. We can take more away. That's the only power the city charter gives us. And I know I've communicated with all of you here about that. I'm glad you're voicing the issue again. I'm glad we're setting resolutions up. I'm sure we'll get responses eventually. It's an incredibly difficult position to sit here and say, here you say can you help us and me basically have to think, and I'm just going to voice it now and say, functionally no. Right, you've come up and you've asked the Council for 10 years for help, and it's the same charter and different members of the Council completely right, you could say people love the Council 10 years ago and they hate me and you know whatever completely different Council, same issues, and quite frankly it's going to be the same response because this Council whether it's the people here now or the people here 12 years ago, neither of those councils could raise any funding for any department by a single dollar. That power only lies with the mayor. And I'm sorry that we can't do more for you to help you other than try to be advocates from the position that we're in.
[Zac Bears]: You know, I don't know if other Councilors have haven't answered the question. My understanding is that other than the parking parking and permitting. I haven't seen civil code enforcement violations as a major source of revenue for the city. I don't know if that's because it actually costs more to send people out to enforce it than we're allowed to fine. I think we're limited at our maximum to $300 per issuance on the fine by state law, 350 maybe. So I don't know the answer to your question is all I'm saying.
[Zac Bears]: We have a lot of issues with how the budget is formatted by the mayor.
[Zac Bears]: We still get access. Only the mayor can ask it to be spent, right?
[Zac Bears]: We nominally have yes. That sounds beautiful. Okay. We've made a lot of recommendations.
[Zac Bears]: even if we use free cash reserves, which are basically just the reserves of the city for one time enforcement, they're one time funds, so wouldn't be hiring a permanent code enforcement officer if we use those reserves. So it really is this longer term, bigger question of, are we funding enforcement in the city correctly? Councilor Caraviello's sixth term and every term, I think his answer has been, no, we're not. And he constantly is recommending every budget under three mayors, if I'm correct, to change that. Fundamentally, and Councilor I talked about earlier, I think we've all talked about it earlier, whether it's reallocating funding, reorganizing divisions, organizing a more proactive enforcement to bring in enough revenue to support the department or using funds, finding new revenue sources to fund it, whatever option we pick on any of those things, that is the administration of the city and that's under the executive branch. And we are the legislative branch. And under our current charter, we don't have the authority to order, you know, maybe maybe we could pass an ordinance to say we reorganizing inspectional services, but I'm not necessarily even sure that the mayor has to follow that, right? Like, as we've noted tonight, we have an ordinance saying we will have a city solicitor, we haven't had a city solicitor for what 30 months. So it's Yeah, it's just an incredibly frustrating situation to sit here and be trying to voice and engage and and work with residents to come up with to voice have hear residents voice in their concerns and difficulties and wanting to see the city become a better place. In addition to, I agree that we do collect the property tax I would say the other thing that we as a city to effectively is this city council for the two terms that I've been on it has passed a lot of good ordinances. We've done a lot of good legislating we passed the road and control ordinance we passed the zoning ordinance on short term rental, we've tried to pass things giving code enforcement clear authority we've passed are working closely to pass a new waste ordinance right. And we passed all these ordinances, and the staffing isn't there or the, you know, for whatever reason. the administration doesn't enforce those ordinances to the letter, and that is where the difficulty comes in, is we can pass the strongest and as many ordinances as we want, but if they don't get enforced by the mayor and her team, or the mayor doesn't come to us and say, I need more resources to enforce this ordinance, then we end up where we are, which is passing good ordinances that then don't get the follow-through that they need. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'll just be fast. We've been here so long and talked so long that I'm sure some folks have had to use the bathrooms at City Hall. And I think that the bathrooms at City Hall are actually one of the best examples of how deeply underfunded the entire city is. I don't think they've been updated since the building was built in 1937. You know, it is not it is it is not a good experience for a resident to use the bathroom and city hall for any staff to use it, and I just bring it up because On every single issue, all of the capital infrastructure that the city owns and manages, we have one of the worst water and sewer systems in the state. We have roads and sidewalks that are in a state of disrepair, trees, you know, we have public buildings like this building that are needing massive renovation, and that's just the capital side. You come to the operating side, and it's a massive underfunding of code enforcement, health sanitarians, rodent control and animal control, you know, people to look at the ADA issues around the city, teachers. basically everything that the city is doing, with the exception of a couple of things that have been highly prioritized, like public safety and emergency response, have been massively gutted over the last 40 years. And, you know, if the plan is, hopefully there'll be enough, you know, we're gonna pass the zoning and new projects are coming in and that's great. If the plan from the administration is fingers crossed in five to 10 years, the council zoning will bring in enough commercial development that maybe we'll start being able to fund things again. It's just not acceptable. So, you know, we talked about being a broken record we've I think brought up all the great broken record subjects tonight of all of our different priorities. I'll bring up mine, which is the city needs more money to do its job the city does not have enough money to effectively staff, basic operations or maintain basic capital infrastructure. And I don't think that new growth and waiting to do that is the plan, but I also agree with my fellow Councilors that in addition to that understanding, and those are just the numbers of the budget if you look at over the last 40 years, we're in an even worse position, because we're not even using what we have to the best of its effectiveness. So it is a double-edged sword. It is both not having enough resources to do everything we need to do and not prioritizing the limited resources we have to be used to their most effective. And I think that basically rules the day on almost every topic that comes before this council at every meeting that we have.
[Zac Bears]: I'd like to propose a B paper to ask the clerk to compare the length of the captions to the length of the ordinance. But I would also, that's a joke. I'll move to refer to, do you have a preference of subcommittee, Councilor Knight?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to refer to subcommittee on ordinances and rules.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I'll be as brief as I can. The Tufts RAs went on a one-day strike last week, and I was happy to support them and this council also. asked Tufts to recognize their union and instead Tufts forced an election, which lengthened the process by months. And now we have the contract process lengthened by months. So these folks don't have a fair contract when the new school year started. But the bigger and more important point I wanna make about this is I spent four years working to bring together students and workers and community members and communities to hold universities accountable to treating everybody fairly. And really the most important thing about that is whether it's RAs or students on campus or residents in the neighborhood around Tufts who are not getting fair and equitable treatment by Tufts or Tufts is taking actions that negatively impact the community or the folks on campus, we're all in the same fight. Tufts is a billion dollar institution, multi-billion dollar institution run by a small group of people who make decisions that a lot of people disagree with. And we can all fight our fights with Tufts separately if we want, but we're actually stronger together. So one of the reasons I think it's important for community members and the city council to support the Tufts RAs is because if we build that relationship, we can call on the Tufts RAs to support us in asking for and fighting for a bigger pilot. And there was an interview today, the Tufts Daily interviewed the new president of Tufts, and the student reporters were making that point too. They said, well, what about the impact that Tufts has on the surrounding community? And the president says, oh, we, you know, new president says that we try really hard. And to give him fair credit, he seemed to be taking a better tone on it than I've heard in the past. But he said, you know, we wanted to hear about this. We want to try really hard to support this. And the student pushed back. So we have the narrative that we've been talking about by reaching out to Tufts students, reaching out and working with the workers on campus about the impact of Tufts on the communities and the neighborhoods that it lives in. That message is breaking through. And if we can all work together to hold Tufts accountable to do better, we have a much better shot than we do of doing it alone. So that is the larger message and point of why it's important to build relationships and show solidarity like this, because what goes around comes around. They're mistreating the RAs today. that we mistreat in the neighborhood tomorrow and someone else the next day, and it's better off if we work together to fight that than if we do it alone. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Just three things. One, on Tufts, it's not about villain or hero. their budgets $1.2 billion a year the city's budgets 200 million. They have 2.4 billion in endowment we have 25 million in reserves, they're rich we're not, it's a problem. I'll leave it there. The second thing I'll say just on the union workers, I hear you, I understand the issues with the contracts that workers have here. I know it's not a position that everyone back here wants to say, because it's technically a position of saying that there's an unjust law that public sector workers can't strike. I support state-level legislation to let them strike. And I said to workers that came up here, if you took a strike action, I would walk on the picket line with you. I don't care if it's illegal or not illegal by state law. It's a bad law. And it means that bargaining goes on forever for 700, 800, 900 days with no timeline on it. And the workers have no leverage, right? The point of the union is that you have collective power and part of collective power is taking a job action. I guarantee you if the firefighters in the community, which is an even bigger thing to go public safety, right? The firefighters in the community went on strike for 12 hours. Everyone in the city would lose their minds and they'd have a contract the next day. I'm not saying that's the best policy in the world, but at the very least state law needs to change so that they don't sit for 700 days before a contract goes to arbitration. So I just wanted to put that point out there that You know, we support the workers to, there's a lot that needs to change around public sector bargaining.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to continue the public hearing to our September 5th regular meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Comments from the CD need to be incorporated into the, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to waive the six day public comment period and approve.
[Zac Bears]: I withdraw the motion. I would move to approve pending the six day public comment period. My apologies, I read it wrong.
[Zac Bears]: Just, you know, I'm happy to just motion to refer this community development board but I do, given that they did come in person if they want to say anything I want to give them a chance to say something before we move on.
[Zac Bears]: Don't want you to feel like we rushed you out of the room.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Director Crowley, Director Dickinson. Just want to confirm this reflects the signed ratified union and contract agreement ratified by the members. Great, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to take paper 21-422 off the table and receive in place on file.
[Zac Bears]: I can provide slightly more information if anyone wants it, which is that this was Citizens Bank in Haines Square. They came to us asking to do ADA upgrades and do it outside on the public sidewalk. create a ramp on the public sidewalk, they did it inside in their own space, which I think is much better use of public space, and it is now accessible to get into that lobby from the internal thing.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilor Collins and Councilor Tseng for putting this forward, and to Member McLaughlin as well. I think in addition to everything that my colleagues have said, something that's really key to this is what is it going to take to make sure that our streets, sidewalks, and open spaces are safe and well-maintained? What is the funding gap there? How are we going to get there? We know that obviously we prioritize what everyone had just talked about around, you know, when we do a new construction project, when we do have all of these complete streets projects, we're prioritizing making sure that people with disabilities have access to our street sidewalks and open spaces. But when we are have such a big backlog and we don't have the time, you know, we have such a long timeline to get there. We also have to think about how many people are impacted by that. How many people can't get to the grocery store or the pharmacy or the dry cleaner or a restaurant or a park to sit in safely because the sidewalk on their street or on the main street near them just isn't in the condition that it needs to be or the ramp or the crosswalk isn't there. So, you know, while we celebrate Disability Pride Month, you know, taking that just taking that pride and taking those values and implementing them in action is part of what we're talking about when we're talking about our budget priorities and the need for significant additional funding to fix the city. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Technically, I think the legal shot clocks start when we vote on it, not when we vote on the record, so.
[Zac Bears]: I took a look at them, they've been layering.
[Zac Bears]: He said both, right?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, right here. It's right now. It's only requesting 10pm Sunday through Thursday and 1030pm Friday and Saturday. That's what so
[Zac Bears]: Second the motion.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Attorney Chin. You may not have the answer to this question, but I have had it asked of me a couple of times this week. Do you know if there will be an interior renovation or if it will stay the same look inside?
[Zac Bears]: We'd be happy to do that. Certainly not a condition of anything, but something the presidents were interested in.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. We did have discussion about this at our previous meeting in public participation, and I, that night, put this on the agenda for this meeting so we could discuss it now. I think the resolution essentially speaks for itself, but given that we do have members of the Traffic Commission here, I would like to ask if this constitutes an official submission for your agenda or not, or if you consider that it does, or how we would go about doing that. You would need to submit it through the police department, Alva, the chief's office. Okay, so if we sent this resolution to Alva, or if the clerk did, would that be sufficient? I believe so, but I cannot speak for her. Okay. I believe that would be the case.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. So we'll do that, but I think you heard, you got the message.
[Zac Bears]: On that point, I would move to amend the paper to include that if such a policy is approved by the Traffic Commission that there be enforcement of it by the Traffic Division and also move that the clerk forward this resolution to Alva at the police department for submission to the traffic commission agenda.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to suspend to take 23-382.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Definitely encourage folks watching now, if they have questions, to take a look at our prior meetings on the issue, including the one that we just had at six o'clock tonight. I think there was really great answers to questions and presentation from our commissioner and director. I think at least how I've been thinking about it in my head is you kind of had a triple mandate to make sure that we had effective and timely waste removal for residents to control costs and reduce waste. And I think there's actually a lot of conflict between those three priorities. And I think that it seems to me that with the way the Solid Waste Task Force worked and RFP process worked, we're there. We're not exactly where we wanna be. We've talked about some of those details in the prior meeting, obviously, but we're keeping controlling costs to the extent that it's gonna be the same as it was the last 10 years, not that it's actually gonna be below 2.5%. So it's still rising faster than revenue. But, you know, this seems to me with the education in the phase and timeline that we're going to have effective and timely waste removal maybe even in many cases more effective in terms of road and control, and, you know, just smell and all these other pieces of it and still getting everything out the door, more for yard waste. know, same size bins, we're not going to smaller bins like we've seen in other communities. Cost control, I mean, you know, costs are still going to be going up, they're going to be going up faster than two and a half percent, but it's not going to be you know, 20%, which is good. And I really do, the thing that really encourages me the most is that this seems to be really pushing us in a zero waste direction. I really appreciated the chart you brought up that showed actually how little of what the city's waste produces is just stuff that is, can't be in some way recycled or composted or otherwise tried to reuse. And I think we all know how important that is considering know, we talk a lot about climate change and we focus a lot about temperature and we talk a lot about whether we don't talk a lot about microplastics and pollution in the rivers and all these other pieces of it as well. And I think this really moves us in a good direction there. So I'm thankful for your work. I'm also thankful that you that I'm also thankful that we waited to see the product of the work before approving the 10 year piece of this. But I would second the motion to approve. It hasn't been seconded already. And thank you for everything you've done on this.
[Zac Bears]: So it was a... I'm decreeing an override.
[Zac Bears]: You're correct. We have never had one, and that is the problem. I just wanted to say, if you didn't miss it, we did have a great conversation about raccoons and rats in the 6 o'clock meeting. And one of the things about the compost bins that Commissioner McIvern was artfully holding up for everyone to see on camera, and I think it'll be on the recording, is that these have a lock so that the raccoons can't get in them, and also the plastic is thicker, and we do not have the rats chewing through them, to Director Hunt's knowledge. So that would be another way to limit access to food waste for pests.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to revert to the regular order of business.
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Madam President, yeah I mean I think at the end of the day we're talking about redesigning roads that were designed before the modern science of road design that we have today and we know that tighter turns closer to 90 degrees and narrower lanes inherently slow and calm traffic and I understand hey I drive everywhere I'm not Justin I'm not taking the bus I'm not walking everywhere I drive everywhere, and I park everywhere. I'm going to drive a little slower, you know, I don't like to walk very far, you know, people can make whatever jokes they want to make about the whole thing. I'm, I'm tied to my car. So don't, don't take me as the one who's, you know, not car dependent or wants to be car-free. I like my car. I enjoy driving it and I will likely be driving a car for a very long time. And I know there are people are going to be mad at me for saying that, but it's how I live my life. That being said, if I have to drive a little bit slower because it's safer, you know, for everyone else in the street and for me and my vehicle. I think people know that the issue of car safety is important to me. I had a close friend who was killed because she was walking her bike on a street that didn't have proper infrastructure, didn't have curbing, didn't have lights and wasn't painted correctly. And if that infrastructure had been there, I'd have my best friend. That's how I think about this issue. That's how I think about these issues. I get it. Sometimes it's frustrating to be driving a little slower. Sometimes I'm frustrated sitting in a no turn on red sign that I used to take a turn on red. But at the end of the day, I, as a driver, am not going to live the rest of my life knowing that I had been in a, you know, situation. If I'm going 25 and someone lives versus I'm going 35 and someone dies because I didn't see them or whatever reason, I don't have to live with that. The family of the person doesn't have to live with not having somebody. And we all don't have to live with the fear of that happening to us on either end of it. And that's how I think about these issues. I'd like it to be permanent curbing. I'd like it to look a lot nicer. I agree with that. I think everyone knows my position on what public utilities should be paying these companies that are taking billions of dollars of profits from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and sending it to the Netherlands every year, instead of investing it in curb cuts and beautification of our communities. it wasn't in the scope. I actually may have misspoke. I actually don't know if that mitigation agreement was under Mayor Burke or Mayor McGlynn, so I just want to put that out there. I may have not had my facts straight on that one. Clearly, doing this the way that we would like to do it wasn't in there. And I think if you look at, I think it was Director Blake's communication about the complete streets, this was like number 19 on the list. I think we've only gotten through four of the dozens of intersections that need these kind of treatments. have paint, we have the temporary barriers, we're going to be able to use them as a pilot program to test what the geometry of this intersection should look like. And then, not to be the broken record again, we need to find the funding to do these kinds of projects. We need to have funding, not just for the repairing and bringing streets and sidewalks in their existing condition to a state of good repair, but also funding complete streets projects and safer intersections and intersections that are accessible to people with disabilities and that are multimodal. And that sadly will mean that I get to drive five miles an hour less than I usually do and take two minutes longer to get to where I want to go. But at the end of the day, I don't think the issue, at least for me, it seems the issue for most people is not with the substance, with the concept, it's with the execution. As much of that as we want to push on Eversource or ask about that being about the engineer or the traffic and transportation director, I do really think the other piece of that equation is the money. And we know that Haines Square and Tufts Square cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars nearing millions of dollars to do similar things. So if we want to do these kind of more permanent treatments, we're going to have to pay for them.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, would you like me to suspend for, I can summarize?
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. This is a version of There's updated slightly updated version of something we had on the agenda earlier this year. We are a special permit granting authority, the city council is in addition to the zoning Board of Appeals and the Community Development Board that gives us the ability if we adopt this rule under Massachusetts general law to require legal. basically outside consultants, engineers, scientists, financial analysts, planners, lawyers, urban designers, or other appropriate professionals to assist the council in analyzing a project where we're the site plan, where we're doing site plan review or special permit granting authority at the expense of the petitioner. So if there was a large developer wanting to look at a property and we're the special permit granting authority, this would allow us to bring on our own experts at the petitioner's expense to assist us in reviewing and considering that application.
[Zac Bears]: I'll take a roll call.
[Zac Bears]: Just one quick question Tim, if you feel like you can't answer this I'll take it to Owen. We have a grant of location for Riverside Ave from National Grid from 2020 that's been on the table for three years.
[Zac Bears]: Do you think we could take it off the table, wait for them to submit a new one?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, so but if I if I motion for us to receive it and place it on file tonight, do you think anyone's going to be injured by that?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I will take that as I have not heard any timely action on such a thing.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to take papers 20-600-22-547 and 23-072 off the table and receive and place on file. 20-600 you lost me right off the first one. 20-600-22-547-23072.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you to my fellow colleagues for co-sponsoring this resolution or lead sponsoring it, President Morell. And we had the robotics team up here a few weeks ago. They were heading off to this championship. They were raising money and just wanted to congratulate them on their great success and wish them even more luck in the future. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: It's going to be a fun one. Yes. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Motion is to suspend the rules to take papers 23-372 and 23-369. On the motion to suspend the rules to take papers 23-372 and 23-369.
[Zac Bears]: If he's not present.
[Zac Bears]: We can see. But he's not marked present.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to refer to Community Development Board.
[Zac Bears]: I just suspended for the two papers.
[Zac Bears]: The last day was June 29th or 30th. So it was right before the holiday. I think there were 15 or so who had pulled the thing, but did not submit an application. So we have names of people who were maybe interested, but then didn't actually apply.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I just think on this specific parcel if you look at the zoning map and you look at the district and you look at the developments around the area. it's already beyond spot zone that already doesn't make any sense. This actually brings this parcel in alignment with the neighboring parcels, certainly with the MUZ zone across the MBTA parcel, but also with Modera across the street and the apartments and the condos on ninth. I mean, it's all a jumble over there and there's a ton of apartments that are on I districts right now that got approved through variances. And we don't have to have the debate about variances again, but this basically is taking a parcel that's currently basically being used as a private parking lot by I think we operated by lazy parking and doing something with it, opening up access to the river, and it is falling under inclusionary zoning and as director noted, this is just a change to the zoning district for the area, they still have to, it's going to be a major project subject to site plan review, so it still has to go through all of the standard permitting and development processes. given that it's certainly not, I don't know what, I don't see anyone building a factory there. And that's basically all that we're gonna let them do under the I zoning. This seems reasonable to me. I do have some questions that I won't ask you now that I'll ask you later about the other zoning that we're talking about and the incentives. I think I just have some questions about that, but separate from this project and the whole Wellington air rights is adjacent to, but separate process from this project.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, do we open up? It's a petition.
[Zac Bears]: No, it's a petition. Sorry. No, it's a public hearing. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Is there a representative of Tufts on?
[Zac Bears]: Oh, if you have a question, go ahead, Councilor Sviprok.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I was going to do the same, just move to approve subject to the conditions outlined by the city engineer.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. given what we heard in our discussions about the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund in our budget meetings last month, and given what discussion we were able to have prior to the invocation of the rule on the 20th, it seems very clear to me, and it would seem pretty clear from what the Water Sewer Superintendent and the DPW Commissioner were saying, is that the Water and sewer infrastructure is basically aging out. We're hitting, for much of it, it was installed 100 plus years ago. That's basically the life of the pipes. And there's significant need for large investments in repairing our water and sewer infrastructure, given that it says right here, reserves can be used for any lawful purpose and can serve to provide financial security in cases of unforeseen events. I think we should keep this money in the water and sewer budget for the use of addressing any emergencies or for the use of investing in capital improvements, the water and sewer system. And I believe before this was tabled that I can't remember, maybe it was DPW Commissioner McGivern. I don't want to put words in his mouth because it was three weeks ago, but he said something to the effect of that this would be like a dollar a month for the average consumer if this retained earnings was put on reducing the rate. So versus this could be used to make $500,000 of investments and repairs in the water and sewer system. So I don't support it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I think that's probably all I believe the reason that the water and sewers voting such an increase is because of the maintenance needs going up. So it's kind of six to one half of this and the other we've, my understanding is that we've been using retained earnings for a long time to keep rates down, instead of investing in the system. or with money that could have been invested in the system additionally. So, you know, and if we're talking about a lot of needs to replace a lot of the system going forward, it's going to be more rate hikes. And I think there needs to be public education campaign more about that than just us talking about it here. Yeah, no, I mean it's going to be it's significant and there's significant need and it's in the, I believe, in our budget meeting, Dan Stonking said it was in the 10s of millions of dollars, so of capital need for the water sewer system. I think we spent some of that too right already. So, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, President Harris, did did the gentleman Mr. Did he say it's a truck or the chief said it's a truck or so we can't ban trucks Did he say that.
[Zac Bears]: Right, exactly. That's what I was gonna say that this could go to the traffic commission and either you could go no trucks or you could go tonnage limit and you can only have the smaller trucks that would be I'm just chiefs on the traffic commission. So I think that would be the way to go on this one, we have some streets like that around the city, where you have kind of this, you know, because we have these parkways that are no trucks, you end up having weird, you know, they don't want to do it, but they could drive down back towards 93 down Riverside and back up Salem Street. I know it's a little bit longer for them to drive, but they don't even need to go down Spring Street. So unless there's, I know Harvard Ave is like the one we can't touch, or Harvard Street is the one that we can't touch, because that's actually a trucking route. And there's some sort of that's not there for Spring Street, that's what I would suggest. And maybe we could suggest that on our next agenda, submit something to the Traffic Commission suggesting that.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to suspend the rules to take public participation and papers under suspension.
[Zac Bears]: No it wasn't. It was four.
[Zac Bears]: It compounds, it's compound interest. That's why it's more than 6%.
[Zac Bears]: Right, we had some specific things that came through on raises that we were able to dispute. We got 30 things put before us and we had employees in the city saying, and by the way, a majority of the positions in that were not department heads. They're just non-union people who are not department heads. And they have, you know, some of these people are making 60, $65,000 a year also saying to me, I can't afford XYZ and I need this raise. And what I had before me, what we had before us was a paper that said, that said you can give some people something or you can give no one anything and it's going to help nothing. I'm what you came before us I think two two meetings ago, and we were sitting here and you said vote down the budget. And I said to you guys, I said, it's not going to get us anything. It's not gonna get us anything because it's not, we've threatened it. We've threatened a million things over and over again to vote down this, to vote down that. We voted down 16 of the 18 things and it hasn't made a single difference in the negotiations. I tried to attend the negotiations. I wasn't allowed to attend the negotiations. And I said before you and got quite a bit of pushback from the mayor's office that I would 100% be on the picket line for a strike because I think four years of no contract is ridiculous. And I think that the negotiations aren't being done in the way that I would wanna do them.
[Zac Bears]: And that's, you know, one of the reasons I wanted to sit down was to see it for myself and confirm that. Now, the choices that I have before me, right, and we've had conversations about this here. I want to open up the budget process. I want to see more information. I want us to be able to have real discussions here on this council about how we move forward, about how we fund staff, about how we fund contracts, because that's the purview. That's as far as we can go here in the purview here. We can't negotiate. the contracts and we can't, by all the times that we've tried and all the ways that we've tried, have had no impact on the negotiations. And when the decision or the question is before us to tell people they're not going to get raises because other people didn't get raises, or effectively shut down the city because people didn't get raises, I have to weigh the harm of that too. And when I know that those decisions are going to be incredibly harmful, and we're not going to get anything anyway, because we're just going to get waited out, I have to try to find something that's gonna improve the process in the future because better or worse, it seems that this is how it's been going for four years and the voters could make the same choice again. And so it's an incredibly difficult position. I work in labor every day. I work in an organization where I've worked for years. I've been a union member. I have never seen a negotiation go this long. I've advocated for changes to state law to basically put a shot clock on public sector negotiations because they shouldn't be allowed to drag out this long. And I'm a supporter of the public employee right to strike because I think that's a way to force people to the table when you don't feel like they're negotiating in good faith. All I know here is that when we say no to stuff about, because it's about the labor relations piece of things, it doesn't impact the negotiations. And so that's how I think about these things. I'm just trying to work as best as I can to make as much progress, to have the information and the open public discussions so that voters are informed and educated about what the budget looks like. And I don't think that voting down these non-union raises would have helped the negotiations, because we voted down 15 raises before that didn't help the negotiations. I don't think voting down the budget is going to help the negotiations, because we voted down a bunch of money papers and we voted down the budget last year and it didn't help the negotiations. So I'm taking a different strategy. My question really is what's the strategy, I'd be happy to sit down and talk through the strategic approach and see how we can be helpful and try new things because what we're being asked, and you haven't necessarily made the explicit asked but the ideas of just voting down non union raises are voting down the budget and voting down money papers haven't been effective, and I can't. repeat an ineffective strategy because it may make us feel better that we said no and stood up to something, but if we still get nothing at the end and somebody else gets hurt, it's just not, that's not fair either. So I hear how much, I think you should get a market adjustment and a raise. Like that's what I think the negotiation should be. I can't even sit in and certainly I'm not on the other side of the table for me to actually negotiate that. So it's a bad situation when it comes to the contracts and there are steps, there are different things that I would like to see tried that maybe could make movement on this. But I don't think that voting down the budget or voting down other people's raises is gonna do that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I think my fellow councilors have spoken well, and the resolution speaks well, but You know, I was driving home from work the other day last week and you listen to a story and you listen to these parents and this kid in Texas, and I know it's not here, I know it's far away, but it's here, being forced to move, leave their home, leave their friends, leave their jobs, because their state says, we're not gonna let you get the medical treatment that your doctor and your family and you want to make sure that you are healthy and safe and living comfortably in your own body. And It's just awful. And so anything that we can do to say that that's not what we're going to do here, I think is very important. I was a lot worse when I was listening to the story, so I apologize for getting emotional, but I just think that's what this is really about, saying that here we're going to let people do what they need to do to be comfortable with who they are. That's very important. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: You did recognize me earlier when I raised my hand.
[Zac Bears]: Hi, Cathy, how are you? I have two questions just further on the pest control. it sounded like you're going to follow the road control ordinance. They have a vendor. The vendor is going to come out monthly. If there are issues, they are going to increase the frequency. And then also that it's going to be a requirement of the staff. And this is the part that I'm sorry, I forgot your name, but you may be able to answer this, that at several points during the day, the crew is going to go across the whole site and clean the whole site for waste. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. That sounds I think I'm just going to once we get to the point suggest that we had one more condition, which is that your pest control vendor submits quarterly reports to the health department about the condition of the property, and that would allow our health department to actually make sure that you're following through on what you've committed to. Okay, and I had one other question that may be for the transportation folks. It sounds like the on site piece As Councilor Scarpelli said seems to be reasonable but I think there's a concern that a resident has raised here, and that I've actually experienced many times about the when you're exiting Riverside Plaza onto Riverside Avenue, in between basically your site and the Panera Bread site, there's massive traffic backups all the time. Folks trying to turn left can't get out, the right is just constantly backed up. It seems to me the only mitigation in here is we're gonna repaint the don't block the box, which nobody follows anyway. And I'm just, is there more mitigation that I'm missing or is there, that's my one concern about the traffic here.
[Zac Bears]: That sounds like some progress, but do you think it would be possible to do additional wayfinding? So I guess I'll just get up and point to it.
[Zac Bears]: here when people are actually making the decision to go into that egress or to go somewhere else?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think that's gonna be key. I understand the structural limitations of the area, but redirecting traffic away from that egress point is important. It sounds like there's also gonna be some improvements to try to stop blocking the egress point, and we'll see how they go. But yeah, I'm glad you brought up that this is happening in concert with the city resurfacing of that stretch of Riverside Avenue, because I think that's important to factor in here, too, that there's gonna be new pavement. And yeah, okay. That's all I have for now. Thank you, Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: So it's going, it's all the way from commercial, I'm sorry, not commercial. I think it's all the way from like hall all the way down to, to the Fellsway, almost all the way to Locust.
[Zac Bears]: Kathy, when we say that, I think we're getting a little confused. You mean the restaurant receiving deliveries of supplies?
[Zac Bears]: Not like delivery orders going out to people.
[Zac Bears]: Any other questions? Just the other one, I think, Kathy, was the sealing of the bins for rodent control.
[Zac Bears]: And that includes any barrels that may be outside?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, those are, are they, if you could just come to the microphone, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, so so like even like a barrel out by the front door is as closing.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I guess I'm just asking like, you know, you may see on the sidewalk like, I mean, this is Medford we have trash bins and the door, you open the door you put something in you close it versus you may have a trash bin where there's like an open.
[Zac Bears]: We will do that.
[Zac Bears]: For information. Councilman, what time is trash pickup normal.
[Zac Bears]: With the passage of an extended hours permit, could the trash pickup extend to the extended hours that were approved?
[Zac Bears]: because I'd like to put some restrictions around when the trash can be picked up. If in fact the permit's going to pass, it's going to allow them to operate to this late an hour in a residential neighborhood. Madam President, the last thing we want to hear is dumpsters banging and smashing in the neighborhood while people are sleeping. Right, Mrs. Fiorello?
[Zac Bears]: You're not saying approve pending, you're saying you'd like.
[Zac Bears]: No, I just, I think we're going to, we've had a robust discussion tonight. I think there's a lot of conditions we're going to add to this. I think all that's going to happen if we delay till July is that we're going to have to have the conversation again, and we're not going to remember all the details to the level that we have the details now. So I'm personally comfortable after we had conditions moving forward, approving with conditions pending the six day waiting period, like we have for most of the other special permits we've considered in the past year and a half.
[Zac Bears]: Procedurally, we actually have to have several, we have to have two months to vote on the special permits and we have to go on a site plan review. So it's- Okay.
[Zac Bears]: So what I'm hearing is there's a motion to approve the special permits for drive-through use and the extended hours with the conditions of, did you say 90 day review? 30, 60 and 90 day review. From the date of opening. From the date of opening.
[Zac Bears]: Special permits for the drive-throughs and the extended hours of operation.
[Zac Bears]: It would also mean none of the conditions that have been negotiated and discussed.
[Zac Bears]: Most of the conditions should go on the site plan review, not on the special permits. I just wanted to clarify. Because the site plan review is more expansive, it allows for more. And also that's where the CDB conditions come in. That's the zoning relief is actually the site plan review. The special permits are just limited to drive through and the hours of operation. All the site plan stuff, conditions of the traffic, the HVAC baffles, which I got from Councilor Scarpelli, no idling during deliveries, basically under the transportation, road mitigation, or the other conditions that we've discussed, sound and noise, would be under site plan review. But site plan review isn't considered a special permit, right?
[Zac Bears]: I would also add that the petitioner has said verbally that they agreed to all the conditions we've suggested.
[Zac Bears]: It's the special permit for drive-through and extended hours. And the conditions are that the permits go with the business, not the license, and that they get 30, 60 and 90 day review from opening. and then the CD board stuff and the off street loading and all the conditions we've done tonight, that's gonna be on the next vote for the site plan review.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so it should be. Motion to approve the special permit for drive-thru and the permit go with the business of the license and there'll be 30, 60, 90 day review from opening.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, we're gonna just have to vote the city board conditions again. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Just yeah, it's fine.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve the site plan review with the waiver of off street loading requirements.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Okay, it should be one thing. Technically it needs to be one thing, but that's fine.
[Zac Bears]: Whatever. It has to be, sorry. I think it's fine. It's on one paper. It'll be fine.
[Zac Bears]: I have a motion from already voted on half the special permits, so we can't do that.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: So if we- Yes, I haven't finished making my motion yet. I was asked to wait. I'm sorry. What's the sufficiency of the vote? The five or the four?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, to approve the site plan review. including the four conditions from the Community Development Board letter. And also I believe I have all the conditions the council put forward, which were to require sealed trash receptacles for customer use. I can just let me know when I can go to the next one, Mr. Clerk. Put in baffles for the HVAC system to soundproof the system. Disallow idling during any deliveries to the facility. Require quarterly reports to the Medford Health Department from the business's pest control vendor. And Councilor Caraviello if I'm correct you wanted to route the delivery trucks, you wanted to route the delivery trucks down commercial street. Explore different routing options for delivery trucks including commercial street. All good.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, through extensive discussions between the mayor and council leadership, I believe we were able to reach an agreement that makes progress on our goal for a better budget process and enables us to move forward and create a plan to fix the city's biggest challenges. Thanks to that agreement, I'm able to move ahead and support the fiscal 24 budget as amended to include increases to the schools library and zoning reform. We received commitments to create a financial task force with city council members, school committee members and city staff to make a plan to fund the city's major challenges to establish a better budget process based on clear principles of having budget meetings starting in January and February. A process for the council to submit recommendations to the mayor and receive responses from the mayor prior to the budget being submitted by the mayor, as well as to conduct comprehensive assessments of our operating and capital budget needs. We also agreed to explore the use of one time funds for budget planning for assessing our staffing needs and our capital needs. And we also agreed to continue discussions to advance the charter amendments approved by this council in some form. I think this agreement leaves much work to do, and I plan to work in good faith to implement it, because I truly believe that if we can get this done, we can build a better future that everyone in our city deserves. That's all I'm going to say. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: When I said Council leadership I meant the President and Vice President.
[Zac Bears]: We worked with what this council had passed and tried to reach an agreement to get it done.
[Zac Bears]: I just said it.
[Zac Bears]: We had a discussion with the mayor and we created an agreement. So personally, you had a discussion with the mayor and you had an agreement? Okay. And it was based on the seven budget meetings we had, what everybody's asked for, and that we thought that we would get the best of possible of what everybody has said they want.
[Zac Bears]: Because of the open meeting law, we are unable to talk to all of you at once, it's against the law, right, so you elected us as your council leadership, if you would like to elect a different leadership that's up to you, Matt point of information Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Say it again, please.
[Zac Bears]: I spoke to Councilor Tseng about a plan. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: No.
[Zac Bears]: Because once I talked about it, once President Morell talks about it, and once I talked about Councilor Tseng that's three, if I talked to anyone else, that's four and it's violating the open meeting law.
[Zac Bears]: It's a violation. Why do you have a meeting then, Zach?
[Zac Bears]: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
[Zac Bears]: The first opportunity that I had to share with all councilors what this was, was when this paper came up on the agenda 15 minutes ago. I was the first person to speak and I said, these are the details. That was the first opportunity, the way the law works, that I can share with everybody what we did. That's what I did, first opportunity. Literally the first one. The council leadership team, we had positions on the budget. It was clear to the mayor that there was Councilors that couldn't support the budget, and she was willing to negotiate something with the President and the Vice President to try to represent the interests of everything we've talked about for the last month. So we did that, and then at the first opportunity in open session to put it forward and tell you what we did, we did. So I don't want to hear fraudulent and I don't want to hear dictatorship and I don't want to hear horrible things. I understand that it feels bad. I have felt very bad on this council many times when I was not in the leadership, when the leadership made decisions that I didn't like. And when the leadership ruled my papers out of order and many other things where I wasn't a good, there was no good faith. There was nothing, there was no even- If you're interested in a task force that includes us in making decisions about the high school and the fire headquarters and the streets and sidewalks and staffing, or if you're interested in a process where we get to meet six months earlier and get quarterly meetings with the finance department and where we get options to bring our recommendations to her next time.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just saying, all the things we asked for is what we were able to negotiate the first opportunity in public session I had to bring it to you. I did. I gave you a heads up before the meeting, because as a courtesy, because it's the first time I saw you after we had details worked out. It's the best I could do under the very difficult situation we were in. The alternative was we get nothing, we vote down the budget, and exactly what happened last year happens again, which is who the heck knows? So there's a lot here that's good that we all asked for, and I brought it to you.
[Zac Bears]: It's just clear that sucks.
[Zac Bears]: I'm trying to keep it to two sentences after this one. The answers to the questions that we asked the administration have come back to us by email. If we read the answers, they show that The administration has said that ClearGov is a bad software and that the actual numbers for expenditures in ClearGov are not reliable. That's one of the issues that we had around the surplus question that I asked you at the beginning. So there's inaccurate, let's not dodge it, Rick. There's inaccurate information in ClearGov about actual expenditures that don't reflect the real actuals. That was sent to us weeks ago. We've had that information for weeks and the question and answers that have been sent to us. I'm concerned about next year's budget and the cliff, which is why we now work together to get a task force and a budget process starting in January so that we open the whole thing up and have these questions and discussions and the information that we need. And it's a public commitment. And you know what? That's what we needed to get there. So I'm gonna move to end debate. I'm moving to end debate.
[Zac Bears]: Could one of you just say that the numbers that for actual expenditures in ClearGov, they are not updated regularly and not correct the correct numbers in ClearGov for the actual expenditures for several of the recent fiscal years?
[Zac Bears]: Again, on all of this, like, I think this goes back to what we were talking about at the beginning of this process and what we've talked about with your office, which is like your staffs running around you. So one of the reasons we wanted that money for budget planning and it's one reason I'm glad we're going to explore it, and what we've discussed because it seems to me there just wasn't enough time to get the right figures into clear gov about actual expenditures. And that that seems to be the issue or that this clear gov system didn't make it easy enough to do it and it wasn't a priority. And I think that's created an information gap here where people think one thing and it's not the real numbers because numbers were put out that are not the correct numbers for whatever reason, either capacity or the technology itself. And I think you know something for me, it would be really good to make sure that We update the clear gov budgets to have the correct actuals that we have up to date for prior fiscal years for the end of fiscal 23, and then we go into fiscal 24 there's a clear note on there somewhere that says, FY 24 actuals are not complete because the year is not complete yet and we will update them after June 30, because there's this information that went out. that was not complete and not accurate. And it's created a disagreement here about what the actual numbers are. Now, I've gotten other versions of actuals from you guys in different documents. So I know that's how I knew what was in ClearGov was not the actual actuals. It's not the actuals from the ACFR. It's not the actuals from the actual spreadsheets that you've sent over. So I know ClearGov is not a reliable source for those pieces of information. So, again, I just think that's something going forward that we wouldn't have had just 3540 minutes of confusion and debate about what the city has actually spent over the last three fiscal years if numbers hadn't been released that were not the correct numbers, and so I just wanted to say that, for the record, on the rest of this I've already made my motion, which is I think we've discussed this, if there are further questions, you know, clearly there was not enough of a supermajority to support the motion and debate but I'm voting on voting. my concerns about the future are very real. That's why it's important to me that we're going to have a task force and an improved budget process in the next budget so that we can actually answer these questions. That's why it's important to me that actual information goes out. And quite frankly, you know, there's a public commitment here. And if If assertions are true that someone wants to go back on that commitment, I'm sure that would be great fodder for the season that is coming up. Everything that we asked for last- George, everything we asked for- George. Everything we- Everything we asked for in the last budget is still in the budget. Yes, it is, George. I agree. I am very frustrated that the hiring didn't happen. I'm very frustrated that- It's all in the budget still. We never want it.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just saying everything that we got last year is still in the budget. If you have a solicitor that wants to work here, that's another story.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. The communication we got from the chief of staff is actually removing, the mayor's amended to remove the indirect transfer. So there's, we can't do that, but she has done that. And I would also move to sever the two votes one to vote on the water and sewer budget and one to vote on the retained earnings transfer promotion advice was embarrassed to sever the two votes to separate the water and sewer budget from the retained earnings transfer second by
[Zac Bears]: that's the truck that we discussed during the electrical budget, and that's why it's coming from keep free cash.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, great. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to waive the reading.
[Zac Bears]: May you refer to the Committee of the Whole.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Given where we're at at this point. basically, once June 30th passes, we're not gonna have access to any of our free cash until DLS certifies free cash, so that could, last year it was all the way till March, so we would not be able to make any appropriations from free cash between July 1st and next March. Creating a stabilization fund would mean that we would have access to some of our reserve funding in case it is needed for an emergency or for an unexpected use. I think it would be good to have some availability for that. and that's what passing this would get us. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Knight for your support for the better budget plan. Don't get me.
[Zac Bears]: Would quite frankly, that was my argument when it was first proposed. So fair argument. Um, would folks consider holding a committee of the whole next week and considering moving on this before June 30th so that we could access the free cash funds after we've had a meeting.
[Zac Bears]: that's something that you guys could commit to having the necessary parties there to make answer all of our questions so that we could potentially schedule a committee of the whole to discuss it and also potentially a special meeting to approve it.
[Zac Bears]: It can't be accessed.
[Zac Bears]: That doesn't make sense to me.
[Zac Bears]: Establish the procedures and protocols for drawing funds out of it and the like, and then fund it.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, I found the records in order and I move approval on the records and all reports of committees.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I believe this is the sixth public meeting we've now had on these items. These are three amendments proposed to the city charter that with the approval of the council and the approval of the mayor would be submitted to the voters in November for their approval. This first amendment would provide the city council with the authority to employ staff for research and legal consulting as needed. The second one would create a better budget plan and better budget process for the city of Medford by setting a formal date by which the mayor would be required to submit the annual budget. The City Council would also have a formal date by which it would have to approve or otherwise act on the mayor's budget proposal, and it would also allow the City Council to have a real role in the budget process by reallocating funds between line items. Right now, the City Council can only approve a whole budget, reject a whole budget, or cut specific line items. This would make the City Council a partner in the budget process. But the city council could not increase the budget above the mayor's proposal. So those are the three amendments of the third amendment sorry the third amendment would. make appointees of the mayor to municipal boards, committees, and commissions created by city ordinance or by state law, subject to confirmation of the council. Right now, the city council does not confirm any nominees to the boards, committees, and commissions that are created by ordinance or state law, unless otherwise required by the ordinance or by state law. So those are the three. I won't do the summary on the next two. Save us some time on that.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, the language reflects the motion from our May 9th meeting to incorporate the specific language changes from legal counsel. And those were also, those changes are also in our packets this past weekend as a red line copy and were also sent out to Councilors about a month ago when they came in from Attorney Goldberg.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I'd just like to note that I've received at least 30 emails in the last three days supporting this paper among other budget requests, and I would move to approve.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve pending the comment period.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, I'll be brief as I think this is relatively self explanatory, but something that we've been asking for, and it hasn't come to fruition yet, although our new HR director said they are working on it as a classification and compensation study. This would actually create something that exists in several other communities, which is an advisory board to conduct such a study regularly and provide regular updates to make sure that the salaries offered to all municipal employees are competitive. So I would move to refer this to the subcommittee on ordinances and rules for further discussion.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, I just wanted to note that. We did hold a meeting on private ways with the DPW commissioner on October 25th, 2022, and that recording is available through Medford Community Media. And there's also more information about the city's policies on private ways around enforcement on the city website and the police department website.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears Thank you Madam President, and I just want to reiterate I don't disagree with that at all I think this actually really speaks to why it's so important that the mayor approves these charter ballot questions that we just move forward, and we implement the better budget plan because we need to have an honest conversation what is it going to cost to bring everything up to a state of good repair, what is it going to cost to bring all these private ways in the public domain. and we need a plan for it. And right now we don't even have the process to have the conversations to come up with a plan. So we're stuck with scheduling this meeting and that meeting and the police have a meeting and we had a subcommittee meeting. Now we have a committee, the whole meeting, but we need a budget plan. And so that's why I'm so glad that the council moved forward on these amendments. And I really hope that the mayor moves forward on them as well so that the voters can have a choice.
[Zac Bears]: I respect what Councilor Knight's saying, but the city clerk's no longer involved in elections. I don't think we should try and do anything to not reinforce that they're separate offices. So that's just my opinion.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I for one, I'm not comfortable with not having Saturdays. I think Saturdays are really important for early voting. I think we know municipal elections are the least I think we should give them the most opportunity to get people to vote. This is why I was so concerned with the budget presented to us for the election office because it sounds like we're trying not to spend more money this year. So we're not going to do early voting on Saturdays for municipal election when we're electing the mayor and the city council, the school committee. the three offices probably that actually impact residents' lives the most of any government office versus I'm pretty sure I know how Medford's gonna vote in November 2024 and 2026 and 2028. Hope, maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. So I just feel really uncomfortable not having the Saturdays and I think we've done more, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe we've done more early voting for municipal elections in previous years than this amount that's being offered.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Yeah. I mean, we definitely last general election offered five days early voting, including a Saturday as well as vote by mail. And I think we should at least continue with what we've done in the past.
[Zac Bears]: That was municipal election, November 2nd, 2021. Okay. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: just wanted to add a couple questions. This is separate from the call to election, which you're gonna put before us at a later date to put this on the ballot. Okay. And sorry, I didn't ask it when you were talking about vote by mail, just a little bit ago. We've had a relationship with the post office in Medford around vote by mail, the last few elections, given the just sheer volume. in 2020, 2021, and 2022. What's the status of that relationship? Is everything going to be in place for September and November? And also, how has that been going with the census? We touched on it last time we talked, but I just wanted to check on those two things really quick.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and just that arrangement's in place for the city census as well? It is, correct. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: What's the last day to pull?
[Zac Bears]: I'm a little concerned because what I'm hearing is if people didn't fill out their census and they sign a nomination form, then those signatures will not be valid for the purposes of nomination.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: How many census forms went out and how many have been returned?
[Zac Bears]: Got it, so you're expecting most people who are active voters now will be active voters on June 16th?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, could you just communicate that number to us to let us know how many people were inactivated once that's completed?
[Zac Bears]: If you could just at whatever point you feel, either if it's June 16th or before then, communicate to the council through the clerk and the president. how many, what percentage of registered voters in the city are active versus inactive and how many were made inactive this year? The percentage, it could be the actual number, it could be both, but you know.
[Zac Bears]: And how many voters are there?
[Zac Bears]: That's crazy. So there were 15,000 who hadn't returned, who were registered. Now they returned their postcards, so it's down to 11,000?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: I have a motion to take 22-514 the outdoor dining ordinance off the table and approve for third reading.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. In this meeting and I'll speak to the May 16 meeting as well and we can vote on those at the same time, since we're roll calling tonight. We discussed the three targeted proposed charter amendments to the city charter that the council has been discussing for the last really almost last two months. Those targeted charter amendments would be to have a better balance of power regarding budgetary authority and require council confirmation of mayoral appointments to to the proposed charter amendments. We have those for our consideration tonight. This is now the process where we'll be taking up those amendments in a public hearing. There can be changes proposed. We can hear from members of the public once again for I believe what would be the fifth time. And then if the council so approves those proposed amendments, they would go to the mayor and the mayor would, if she approves, be able to then submit those to the attorney general for consideration on the November ballot where voters would vote on these proposed changes to the city charter. With that, I would move approval on both reports of committees.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: I move to suspend the rules to take papers 23-287, 23-315, 23-317, and 23-318.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you to everybody who has shared their views on this matter. Obviously, there's a lot of opinions and passion about it. I have a few thoughts. Number one, the biggest complaints seem to be about enforcement, whether that's traffic enforcement or parking enforcement or code enforcement. we have received communications from parking staff saying that they really are imploring the mayor to increase the parking staff. We've received, I think, recommendations from a couple of building commissioners and DPW directors in a row asking for more code enforcement staff. And I'm sure that the police chief would say that he needs more support for traffic enforcement as well. The City Council has zero authority to require enforcement of anything, zero authority to fund enforcement without the request of the mayor to fund those things, and I really strongly encourage, whether it's just related to this proposal or really anything you see in the city, to contact the mayor about those matters. There's a couple things that we can do here. Right now, we have a proposal in front of us for 11 to 1 a.m. every day. the petitioner could, after hearing this discussion today, maybe come up to the podium and suggest an alternative that might meet their purposes, but not be all 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. every day. It could be maybe only till midnight, or only certain days of the week. I'm not gonna define what the petitioner may or may not be willing to propose. They've put something in front of us as written, and that's what we have to consider, unless they were to come up and say otherwise. I think there's a reasonable accommodation that can be reached between all parties to address the issues that everybody's raised. But in general, when we talk about setting a precedent, we already have significant number of restaurants in this community that have permits to open from 11pm to 1am. So the precedents already set that that is something that many, many, many restaurants have asked for and have been granted. And I think for me as a Councilor, what I have to consider is Is there a compelling reason that if many other restaurants have been given that, and they're not just in Medford Square, they're not just in certain places, they're really some are in places that their neighbors would also say are residential areas. why can't this one be granted as well? So that's what I'm gonna be considering tonight. Certainly there are conditions that we could place on a permit if we were to approve it, like a 90 day review to get a report on noise complaints and code infractions and anything else that we have so that the questions that people have raised saying, well, this may happen if this permit is granted, we could actually collect that data, review it and consider the effects of this after a certain period of time. That'd be certainly something I'm willing to entertain. I'm going to pause there. I think there are a couple things that could happen right now. We could either put some conditions on it. We could have the petitioner say that there may be an alternative that's not as expansive as this. Um, or I'm sure my fellow Councilors have some other ideas as well. So thank you, Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I just want to again be super clear. We can't set the rules for the L Street parking lot. We can't set the rules for resident parking on Main Street. We can't, we can't say who in corner houses gets what thing. You know that's the traffic commission they have the authority to do that so we can talk all well and good about that but it's really not our purview and if you have issues with where you're what the resident parking rules are on your street or in the L street lot is the purview of the Traffic Commission. Not only do we not appoint members of the Traffic Commission, we don't even confirm the mayor's appointments the members of the Traffic Commission parking, and I just want to reiterate this again we got a communication from the parking director they're bringing in $2 million, but they're actually only we're only spending a million on parking enforcement, and the mayor is using the other million to cover other things in the general fund. while the parking director is requesting more parking enforcement officers and is certainly raising the money to do it. So if you have a question about parking enforcement, I really would encourage you to email the mayor and say, please use the money we're raising for parking revenue to enforce the parking rules in the city. just from pure procedural thing. I would like to hear from the petitioner if they're willing to present an alternative, lesser proposal. I also think to Councilor Scarpelli's point, if we were to move forward on that, it wouldn't be a motion to table. It'd be a motion to continue the public hearing to a date certain and hold a committee of the whole before that date. And that's just, we just, that's how we have to do it because it's a special permit process. And if we don't follow those rules, nor if we don't act within 90 days, then we can't put any conditions.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, yeah, that's yeah, that's right. That's what I got some information on that. Yeah, so I would love to hear from the petitioner if they have maybe Councilor Knight and then we'll go to the petitioner.
[Zac Bears]: I motion to reconsider the last vote.
[Zac Bears]: We have other compromises, no.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, I'm just not gonna sit here and debate procedure with everybody. We can do it in two weeks, it's fine.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's ridiculous. Absolutely nuts.
[Zac Bears]: And if you're wondering, it's probably going to be open 11 to 12 Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.
[Zac Bears]: mostly for the time that you've all been here. I wasn't gonna say anything, but I'll just be short and sweet and say that I think this is a great resolution. My only thing is what more can we do beyond this? And I have your back on it a thousand percent. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'm sure we're taking away valuable practice time.
[Zac Bears]: So Councilor Tseng went to Harvard and I went to UMass and I like to see you, I think you beating Phillips Exeter is like UMass beating Harvard. So now in the spirit of unity, We all went to Medford High School, and we're really proud of you. So I think that goes for both of us. But just if you're considering programs when you're going to school, UMass has a great engineering program. And maybe it's no Harvard, but it's pretty good. So thanks, you guys.
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, while we're under suspension, motion to take 23- Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: I just at this point, we might as well get everybody else out. They're all here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for presenting this. Just two quick questions. One, the city has the Wellington Air Rights RFI, I think that's out right now, which is even before an RFP, nevermind an actual plan, but it seems like you're designing this so at least in theory it could be integrated with the larger project proposal for the area?
[Zac Bears]: And I'm second, I'm sure your lawyers are great, but I just wanted to note that given the transit oriented nature of this development, that the parking minimums would be significantly reduced and you could kind of maximize either commercial space in the podium or additional residential space. And I think that would be a great benefit to the community.
[Zac Bears]: And then finally, just are you proposing any affordable units above the inclusionary minimum?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, that's our minimum. All right. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Can we stop the screen share?
[Zac Bears]: I motion to refer to community development. I second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Madam President. Yeah when I heard that that's just added shame to a shameful situation. I did try to come to a negotiation a few weeks ago. I was denied entry. Um by the mediator and told I could come back in the future. I spoke with Mr. South. So I'll try again. But I wanted to be there. I wanted to be there. I wanted to see it and I wasn't allowed to, um. And that was very Yeah, I don't know what else to say about that one, but Steve invited me and I showed up and the mediator said, no, you can't come in.
[Zac Bears]: continue vice president bears like we still we have other folks want to speak but you know I was just Amy kind of no offense for cutting me off but I just kind of wanted to give you the give you the floor when you're making a passionate speech I just wanted to say a couple other things really quickly and then I'll defer to everybody else. I hear you on the request. We threatened it last year, and it was clear that after 45 days, according to state law, the budget goes into effect anyway, even if we don't vote for it. So there may be something there, but she's waited us out on everything else. She'll wait us out on that. So I hear the ask, and I respect the ask. And I'll consider the ask, but at the end of the day, we threatened it over a multitude of issues last year. And the law says 45 days after she submits the budget, if we have not voted to approve it, it goes into effect automatically, with no change from us. So I hear you, it's absolutely morally wrong. Absolutely, I think, politically stupid. But the I'll put it this way. There's some charter amendments that are that we're all considering later tonight that would actually give the city council real backbone if if the mayor lets them go forward, which, you know, we'll see if that happens. But either way, we're planning, I think, to put them on the ballot this fall. And I think it's something that the city should vote for, because the residents should vote for, because I think it would give this council actually a fighting chance to help in certain situations. That's one path that I'm going down. The second one, obviously, is change the negotiating partner. and the city may have a chance to do that at some point. The third thing I'll say and again I don't a public officials you don't usually hear public officials say this and be I really hate to put it back on to you, but a work stoppage, a strike, something to force her to the table, even if we don't vote for the budget. it'll go into effect after 45 days. So it's not the same thing. I understand that strikes are illegal in Massachusetts. We've seen a lot of public sector strikes over the last two years that have been highly effective. I'll stand that picket line with you every day. So, you know, I know that's a really hard ask. And that's why I but I no one's brought it up yet here before and all these conversations. I sit here incredibly frustrated constantly at our inability to actually have any real authority to get the administration to do pretty much anything that we want. Nevermind just the contract issue but a million other things charter amendment path is one path, I'm trying to go down to balance things. I think we try to advocate with with the mayor's office. But the buck has to stop somewhere. There's nothing in the law that we can stop really anything for any more time than 45 days. But you guys could stop the whole city, because you're not just the face of it. You're the feet of the city. You're the people who actually do all the work every day. And if suddenly the city came to a screeching halt, it would have a pretty big effect. So I understand that's a really hard decision. I'm not a member. I wouldn't be voting on it. But if you all voted to do it, I'd be with you.
[Zac Bears]: I'll be quick, because that was probably a better ending than what I'm going to say. Sometimes I think George and I are like vying for Councilor buzzkill. And I'm not sure which one of us is worse, but maybe it's like a Jacqueline Hyde kind of thing. And you can pick which one. But two things here really, for me, they're just like really sick. And again, It's money and fear, right? At a certain point, we have to say, how much is it going to cost to give you what you deserve? If George is right and we're screwed, it doesn't change how much it's going to cost us to give you what you deserve. It just means that we're not going to have as much money to do it, so we have to figure out how to raise that money. maybe there is a bunch of money. Maybe this free cash thing is a real thing. And maybe, so maybe the money really is there, but there's fear to tell us what the situation is. And then, and this is the part where I'm counseling Buzzkill, there's fear on the part of the mayor to say, okay, it's going to cost $5 million, right? Like she's always talking about all these contracts. We got to give everyone the same thing. That's what equity looks like, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Well, you're not getting what the teachers are getting, right? And even in that contract, the lowest paid workers in the school system, the paraprofessionals, they figured out a way to make the job better and give them like a real market adjustment and pay significant, not 2%, like 20%, 25, 30% for the lowest paid workers. So at the very least, let's use that as a model, right? Let's say that's the baseline. And for the lowest paid workers, can we give a real market rate adjustment? Because I think we all know that 45, 50, 55,000 is not cutting it in Medford anymore. But then the question is, right, like, okay, we really don't have the money right now. Do we really think that the people of Medford wouldn't vote to raise money to pay the city workers fairly? I don't. And that's the fundamental question at the end of the day. I hope we don't have to ask, but we have to be willing to ask. That's just where I come down on it. I know that maybe isn't the most popular thing to say all the time, but I cannot think of a better thing to fund with an override than giving you guys fair pay and benefits. I don't think the solution, if we don't want to do that because we're afraid to ask, is to stonewall you and take away your longevity and take away your sick bank and take away whatever else. you know, never going to get 100% agreement on anything. But I think we're probably most reasonable people listening to say that the way these negotiations have been going is not fair. And the answer here is, at the end of the day, it's a money question. So how much is it going to cost? And how are we going to pay for it? And I just think if we could answer those, if the mayor could come up and answer those two questions? Yeah, maybe it puts it back on the you know, I put it back on you, right? I'm like, go on strike. You know, that's really hard. We can put it back on the voters too and say, hey, this is how much it costs to have fully staffed departments or at least better staffed departments where people get fair pay. And that's kind of what I would like to see. So maybe that's something we can squeeze out during this budget season is at least getting an answer, how much is it going to cost? And then asking, why aren't we going to do the thing we need to do to pay for it? So I hope we can get something. But George said it at 6 p.m. We're dejected. I'm sure you're a million times more dejected than us, because you're here 40 hours a week and not 10 to 20 hours a week, and it's your family's pay on the line. But we're dejected too, and it sucks. So it's the worst kind of solidarity I can present, but I feel you.
[Zac Bears]: and the Celtics are winning, so.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to suspend the reading in favor of a short summary.
[Zac Bears]: Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. This first proposed amendment would give the City Council the ability to employ staff and also advisory legal counsel. this is a public hearing, so you'll have to follow the public hearing procedures in just a moment. My suggestion for all of these, we've received some legal comments. My suggestion is going to be that after you open the public hearing, we continue the public hearing to our next regular meeting on June 6th, which is what was recommended by Council. I asked this question last week, thinking this might happen. So continue the public hearing to the June 6th regular meeting and also incorporate the proposed language changes from legal counsel in advance of that meeting.
[Zac Bears]: I'm happy to. We could. Okay, it's open. So we could do that next meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, sure.
[Zac Bears]: Continue the public hearing to our next regular meeting and incorporate the suggested language changes from legal counsel.
[Zac Bears]: The Bedford City Council will hold a motion to suspend for a short summary.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. This is the second of the three charter amendments. This would create by charter a specific process for the creation and approval of the municipal budget. And I would again, after you open the public hearing, I would move to, I'll make the motion.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I would move to continue this public hearing to the June 6th regular meeting and incorporate the language changes suggested by legal counsel.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to suspend the reading in favor of a summary.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. This is the third of the three amendments. This is the one regarding changes to the charter regarding requiring council confirmation of appointees to the merit of municipal boards, committees, and commissions.
[Zac Bears]: Hi, Paul. Thank you, Madam President. We did get a letter of official comment from the Charter Study Committee saying they were taking no position on these, and we entered that into the record. We're actually going through two completely different processes. This is Chapter 43B, Section 10, which allows targeted amendments that don't affect the scope of terms, terms of office, length of terms of office, number of people on any you know, school committee or City Council. This only allows changes to essentially the powers of the various municipal bodies. This process is again targeted and can occur this year quickly and would go into effect in January 2024. The Charter Study Committee appointed by the mayor is looking at making recommendations that would be proposed to the council that would need to be enacted by the legislature through special act, and that would not happen until 2026 or 2028, but any recommendation by the Charter Study Committee could overrule or change these charter amendments. they could propose to change these after, if they were to pass, they could propose to change them. So we've been pretty clear in our, this is our fifth public meeting on the matter that these are two completely different processes. And we were very intent on getting the direct input of the Charter Study Committee so as to avoid any confusion.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, motion to continue the public hearing to our June 6th regular meeting and to incorporate suggested language by legal counsel.
[Zac Bears]: If I may, Madam President, I would also just note that They may be in the same situation in a few years here in Medford, that area is prime location and is in our comprehensive plan. No, I'm just saying our comprehensive plan, if suddenly that lands worth four or five, six times what they paid and invested into it, they may be moving yet again. So just wanna put that out there.
[Zac Bears]: Do you want to add yours in George? Yes.
[Zac Bears]: So what happens? And we can talk about it in two weeks.
[Zac Bears]: Motion approved.
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: Eight straight, go Celtics!
[Zac Bears]: And I can, while he's writing it up, just say that the May 3rd Subcommittee on Ordinances and Rules was on the Waste Hauler Ordinance, which we reported out to Committee of the Whole and Body Shops and Auto Repair Facilities. We started looking at the ordinances around making sure that there's safety on those, so.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to suspend the rules to take paper 23-303, 23-290, 23- Hang on, hang on, hang on. Sure. All right. 23-303.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Just want to also quickly say I think it's just such an exciting venue coming to Medford Square, and really excited to see what you're going to do with the place and the images and photos and schedule that's already been released seems really great so I'm really looking forward to coming down and spending some time at your group of spend money to sit there but.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to revert to the regular order of business.
[Zac Bears]: I'll just note that when we met in committee of the whole, there was basically the main change here between what we met on committee of the whole on and this is the inclusion of several items regarding insurance that Councilor Caraviello requested and that the building commissioner and the planning department included in the ordinance. So that is all addressed and I would second Councilor Knight's motion.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Thank you, Madam President, Mr. Commissioner, under section 14 dash 490 regulatory authority you have the authority to promulgate rules and regulations necessary to implement and enforce the article, my recommendation would be that once this passes third reading and assigned and is on muni code which could be a couple months from now at the very least. that you just take the language that you have and create a regulation to that effect. And then, you know, it's your discretion to enforce if you pass regulation that says we'll be going by the, you know, the governor's executive order until that point, I don't think you'll have any objection from this council. Okay, fair enough. Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Nope, just that, you know, I think I'll add one thing, which is that I think we were hoping to maybe start these discussions earlier, but we are where we are at this point, given that, you know, doesn't look like we're gonna have any more information six weeks ago as we have today until essentially a budget is submitted to us. So we have to go forward just kind of with whatever the information we have is today on making recommendations to the administration about what we'd like to see in the budget.
[Zac Bears]: I think you can also apply the great axiom about, well, you can't fly a spacecraft to the sun. Well, we'll just go at night. Just go at night, Councilor.
[Zac Bears]: We Councilor favor put a resolution on this. We met on it. October 25th of last year. I'd recommend watching it. I hate to be the bummer in the room because I don't agree that it's not fair, but it's not the city's choice. We're bound by state So I would really recommend watching the recording of our October 25th Subcommittee on Ordinances and Rules meeting. There's also a written transcript in our November 15th council records. Technically the city can, there is a process, the only process the state allows for a city to accept a private way as a public way is if the public way meets the standards of the state for a public way. But the residents would have to collectively pool and pay to upgrade the private way to meet those standards. before the city can legally accept the road as a public way. So that's kind of the catch-22. In terms of the public safety issue, we had the discussion on it. The city, because there is public access to the private way, the city voluntarily provides certain public safety service, but it is voluntary. The state of the city is technically under no legal obligation to provide them. The police department has also had a number of meetings that are recorded about parking issues on private ways. residents on private ways, as long as they have the agreement of all the butters and that's probably why he recommended looking at the real estate thing to see exactly who has the legal rights to the private way. If everyone agrees you can put up speed bumps stop signs whatever you want, and the city can't say yes or no to that because it's a private way, but a lot of our private ways don't have sewerage systems drainage systems. things of that nature, which are basic requirements under state law for acceptance of a private way as a public way. You know, I'm not going to justify the response that you got. I don't think it's right. I'm not going to say that it's a fair thing that the way that private ways are treated relative to public ways. but it goes beyond the city of Medford. One of the reasons we have a lot of folks on public ways waiting 2, 3, 5, 10 years on sidewalk lists as well, it's because we have $100 million backlog and we have a report that says we need to spend $10 million a year, we spend $1 million a year, and there's not $9 million to cut somewhere else to fund roads and sidewalks. I think if we had a large community conversation around private ways and we're willing to raise $50 million, $100 million to turn every private way up to code to bring it into a public way, That would be a path forward but there's no path forward that doesn't cost either the butters a significant amount of money or the community is significant amount of money. And that's the catch 22 or and so I do feel for you I think obviously if there's public safety issues the city should come out and try to address them but but state law says that the city doesn't actually have to and it's the responsibility of the private butters to handle.
[Zac Bears]: Just really quickly, like again, I think We all agree that this is a situation that the city doesn't benefit from it anyway, but I think the scale and scope is a little out of, you know, if we had if all the private ways in the city was became public ways, the state would send us like $400,000 more a year. We'd be able to plant like three trees fix for sidewalk panels I mean it's, it's, it's, that's the issue, you know state hasn't doubled hasn't hasn't increased chapter 90 in years, the city's not putting really any money, you know when we talk about paying for services quite frankly city property tax money mostly doesn't go to roads and sidewalks. mostly goes to everything else. The only thing that's really going to road and sidewalks is chapter 90, which comes from the state, which is tax money to state tax money, but is 10 times less than the amount that we should be spending on roads and sidewalk repairs. And I'm guessing now that I think about it more, that the road and sidewalk analysis is probably only for public ways. So the number there that's 130 million may well be 200 million if you add the 30% of the city that's private ways. You know, I think we brought up in that meeting with the DPW Commissioner, you know, look at our existing ordinance, what can it do? It pretty much goes to the extent of state law and says the city, you know, we, the City Council absolutely authorizes the city administration to, to fund the programs that Councilor Caraviello was talking about. We could strengthen that ordinance even more if the mayor doesn't appropriate money to that. doesn't, you know, we don't even have legal authority to move money around to make or fund that, which is another fight that we're fighting. And we're fighting about a capital needs assessment, so that we know the amount of needs so that we can say, okay, it is $200 million. If we did this amount each year, it would take us 12 years to get to a state of good repair for everybody. Or if it is 100 million to convert every private way to public ways, if we spent you know, 8 million a year, we'll get there in 15 years. And you know, those those are, that's what we need to do. But those are the answers that we don't even have, like, not only we know the problem, we know, we'd like to fix it. But the will to actually find the answer to the question, how much does it cost? And how much do we need to invest over what period of time to achieve our goal to fix the problem? We don't have that answer. And that's the answer we need. Then we can go to everybody in the city and say hey, we have this private ways problem, it'll cost $8 million a year, do we all think we should spend $8 million a year to fund that and we can actually have that kind of community conversation, but that's the real issue you know this council could pass the best ordinance in the world next week on this question, and it won't force any single hand to appropriate a single dime. to match private money to fix private ways. So until there's the willingness to like actually from the city administration side say okay, we fully acknowledge that we have this massive amount of capital need and operating need to effectively fund the city. and this is how much it would cost, and this is how much it would cost us to get there if we break it down over a long period of time, then this council is going to be passing ordinances that the mayor doesn't fund or enforce. And that's kind of the catch-22. Again, I hate to be like Debbie Downer over here, because I do think we should try to do something to fix the problem, but we don't even have the authority to move money around within the existing budget to fix one road, never mind 30% of the streets. So it's a difficult situation.
[Zac Bears]: that we can implement to address those things as a community. There will be a book discussion in the city council
[Zac Bears]: I have had a conversation with the new facilities but you better. I met him. Oh, he is looking at the space the lighting curtains, etc. I'm sure that if we put a resolution on and be happy to co sponsor with you he'd come down and talk to us. But he's probably gonna say is, I need money. And then, you know, we're back across the hall again. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Come on, William, as Council and I would say you can't even cross.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion? I was just gonna move to- We have a vote on this. Oh, sorry. I was just going to move to place this under reports due deadlines and invite the facilities manager to a future meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Move around the agenda. Let's go, Celtics are losing, I'm bummed. It's over anyway, glad we missed it.
[Zac Bears]: City should be getting 20% of the rocks at least.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President and, you know, we Okay, I'll address the substance that I'll address the larger, the larger thing that we're working on my suggestions, just because I'm not on the subcommittee just to put it in your ear to those who are on the subcommittee. I'm pretty sure I'm not on the subcommittee. is a great way that we can maybe do this fast is look at the use table and say we're not going to allow these uses in C1 C2 and I districts anymore, like no new body shops no currently they're allowed by right right but we could we could adjust the use something we could do quickly in the zoning is just change the use table and say no. And then that would be an effective moratorium on the things we don't want to see. And then it would still allow people to go through plan development, or if they're by right uses that we do like to move forward on those so that would just be my suggestion, since I'm not just get my input in since I'm not on the subcommittee I think that would be a really easy way to quickly, instead of going through the real meat of the zoning ordinance just go to the use table say here are things that we don't want by right in these areas because we want to preserve these properties for potential better uses in the future. On the zoning, we did have I think a good discussion a couple weeks ago in April around the RFP and we had all of that going out to really start having interviews with the consulting teams that are going to apply for the RFP for zoning this summer and start kicking off the real zoning work in September. And the way that we wrote it is that, you know, it's not just we're going to spend two years on something and pass something at the end. It's that we're going to work on different issues and try to pass things as we move through the process. Some things may be bigger and take longer time. Some things may be low hanging fruit that we get at right away. So I am really hopeful that we will be able to engage on that quickly on the larger process. But I agree with the sentiment here. And I think there are certainly uses that are currently allowed by right that we don't need new new versions of on property that could eventually be used for much better things in the community. So I thank you for putting this forward.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just want to say, you know, we should probably be receiving more than one of these every quarter. And this is the first one we've seen in a long time. And that's five years old. So that's it. I just, you know, there should be more of these coming through and they're not coming down from the law office. And one of the reasons is that we don't have a law office except for Janice who's working very hard. So thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'll just, I'll just read them out loud. And so the first one that was the applicant to include a landscape offers on around the main parking lot. And the second one was applicant to explore the use of one-way vehicle loop and angled parking throughout the site. And so I think we have a really good solution to this and I am going to hand it off to Michael Giuliano, our site engineer to discuss. Great. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we talked about it last week. We're going to work with MassDOT in trying to, where the Mystic app turns into two lanes to one lane, we're going to try and cut that back to where Atlas Liquors is. Also put a crosswalk in where the opening to 142 Mystic is now, so it's easier for bus access on the other side of the street, just makes it safer.
[Zac Bears]: I didn't update the landscaping plan for this meeting, no.
[Zac Bears]: That's great. No, thank you so much. Um, no, we had to come back a few times, but I greatly appreciate tonight and going. late Wednesday night, I greatly, greatly appreciate it.
[Zac Bears]: Love to have you guys opening that.
[Zac Bears]: Kyle is going to be presenting tonight. Kyle, are you there? Yeah. OK. Can I share my screen?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So I'm going to make this short and sweet because we've been waiting for three hours. So I'm going to try to go through everything as quick as possible for everybody. It's been six months since we last sat with this board and went through the original site plan for the Great American Beer Hall. We're happy to say we've made a ton of progress based on your suggestions, comments from the previous meeting back in October. Over the last six months, we've worked tirelessly with our architect, our civil engineering team to improve the site. to its best ability and we welcome to all your thoughts and opinions that you guys suggested on the first go around and we appreciate those. And I think you'll be happy to see that we've made pretty much every accommodation to every suggestion made. I did want to start our presentation off by introducing a financial commitment partner on this project, which is actually Mass Development, which we were able to secure funding with shortly after the New Year program became available to us, and we jumped right on it. happy to say that the state is on board for this project and we have a representative of mass development on the call tonight. She would just like to say a word or two and basically what this beer hall could mean for the city of Medford and why they are interested in funding us in this project. Her name is Julie Cohen and I'll let her take it from here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Julie. Go Bruins. All right, so I'll continue off that but as Julie mentioned, you know, now that we have kind of our financing in place we've been hard at work over the last six months doing everything we can.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We had no idea. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Better to be safe. Thank you. Thanks, Jackie. All right, so yeah, without boring everybody with the review of the entire plan as it once was presented back in October, I'm just gonna focus on the things that we have done to improve our plan since we last met. And as you mentioned, back in October, we were essentially given an approval with conditions and a list of those conditions that we needed to meet and come back to this board and present to you, and we have done that. I have the civil engineer, Michael Giuliano on the call, and we also have the architect, Andrew Larson on the call. So I'll just step through and try to be as quick and brief as possible. So everybody who's familiar with the site 142 Mystic Ave, these are the satellite images of what the current use of the property is, which is essentially a tow yard and a bus yard. Basically, we've been hard at work trying to improve our site plan and improve some renderings for you guys and invest more money into this project and show you some higher quality things. a bit underfunded in the first go around and it was kind of basic drawings and schematics. So we've invested a lot of time and energy in presenting these to you. So the building has made significant improvements. As mentioned, I have the architect on the call to answer anything specific about the building in general, but I'd like to kind of just keep things moving and step it through. And if you have questions, we can reserve those for after and Andrew can hopefully answer those for us. It's a pre-engineered metal building. It sits on the lot just the same exact as we presented it back in October. The most improvements we feel we have made is a lot in the material choices that we're selecting. We've introduced as much greenery as possible. A lot of things you're seeing out here are live hop walls grown on vines, which we think are really cool. It ties into the beer hall aesthetic and it adds some greenery to the outside. We've also proposing a green screen on the side of the building facing the parking lot. But I think this is probably the most telling of all. This is an overlay rendering of the existing site. To the south, you can see the Atlas Liquors building there, and to the north is 131 Mystic Ave. The building sits on the southern side of the property. You can see the whole building there, 22,000 square feet. Basically, we have our parking lot on the left side here. This is the landscape that we've introduced. This is all in the landscape plan on the civil plan. I'm just showing you kind of the aerial rendering to try to put it all in perspective. Parking lot over here, our EV spaces are located still here on the side. We've introduced the crosswalk to the building from the parking lot. We've introduced crosswalks at all points coming from Mystic Ave into our property. We have our parking lot in the front, our landscape buffer on Mystic Ave. We have our pedestrian sidewalks coming off Mystic Ave and coming into the property. We have our pedestrian sidewalks going along the building and entering our building. Um, we have our little roof deck out here and our patio. Um, we tried to shield it with as much green as possible. We've consulted with the, uh, department, um, necessary, the fire department for the, uh, fire truck access. We've consulted with the traffic department and director Blake. Um, so we've done the best we can with this and we feel like, um, and it, we feel like we've, we've accommodated everything that you guys are looking for and have severely improved the site from what it once was. So I'm going to go next to the more. detailed plans. That was just kind of the pretty pictures, but let me get down to landscape plan. So this is just our planting plan and our landscape plan. This was done by a landscape architect from Gregory Lombardi design. Basically he spec'd various plants and listed them all here. This is included in the package we submitted to the board. So all these trees and shrubs and ground cover and grasses were selected by this group. Essentially, we have our landscape buffer going around the whole front and around the side as much as possible, and along the beer garden patio in the front, and then on the perimeter where we can around the main parking lot. That's the landscape plan, the site civil plan. As I said, civil engineer Michael Giuliano is on the call. He's been working closely with the city on getting this thing where it needs to be. He's also been in talks with the fire department to ensure that we have what we need for the fire truck in and out. So all that has been detailed here. It's provided to the planning board in the packet that we gave you. Forgive me if it's a little blurry here when I zoom in, but It has everything detailed, the crosswalk. It has your sidewalks, your ADA ramp access. It has everything listed there, including stormwater, drainage, utility, all that. Also included in their plan, this is the fire truck. Turn around, so this is for the Medford Force T-RAD fire truck turning plan. This was in consultation with the fire department. The fire truck can access the property on three sides, can come in through, park in the parking lot in the front, approach the building from the side and reach the building from the rear. We have letter of endorsement from the fire chief as well. So basically, Basically the things that you guys asked for and the approval of conditions, I'll just run through that list quick, but I just wanted to give you that quick overview of where we're at with our plan. A few things that we addressed here. So first was the applicant needed to improve pedestrian access with concrete sidewalks at the site entrance on Mystic Gav. We believe we have done that. We also included the curbing along Mystic Gav and the entrance to be vertical granite curbing. The, you asked that we replace all sidewalks and drive opening with new concrete along the entire property frontage. We've done that everywhere except for the curb cut. Second thing, applicant to provide new ADA compliant pedestrian sidewalk within the site to main entrance to the building. We have done that. It's in the plan. The site shall be designed with ADA compliant sidewalks and parking spaces required by law. So we did just that. The third thing you guys asked for, applicant to improve the landscape buffer along the Mystic Gap frontage to include nine and a half feet. We have done just exactly nine and a half feet. Applicant to increase the project gross landscape area to at least 9,000 square feet. We are at 9,500 square feet. Applicant to increase the total landscape and open space area to at least 13,400 square feet. We are at 13,700 square feet. applicant to include planting hedges along at least 80 feet of the Southeast Philly property line currently abutting Atlas Liquors. This was actually suggested against by the fire chief and his letter is provided. He wanted more fire access to the site and doesn't believe that those plants are appropriate in the sense that if he needs to get around the building, he doesn't want those there. So we deferred to him on that. Um, next thing.
[Zac Bears]: And yeah, so essentially, yeah, he, he didn't want the tall hedges. So, um, we still have the green space and small edges. He didn't want anything smaller. Yeah. He didn't want our provide. He didn't want anything too tall. So we just still green space, but smaller plants. Can we go to the landscape plan? Yeah, I see.
[Zac Bears]: So just along the Atlas liquor line, he didn't want any, any tall trees there. So we just have small shrubs all along here.
[Zac Bears]: I know it's not your so yeah, so he has for access on that side of the building. He's driving in Atlas Lickers. And he didn't want he didn't want tall trees in the way if he needs to put out a fire on the side of the building. So his request was just small, like, you know, two foot bushes on that side.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Okay, sorry, I lost my thought. Okay, applicant to include a landscape buffer zone around the main parking lot. This is where I think Brian can speak to this. This is in regards to the adjacent lot to the northern side of the property. So it's the same landlord that owns 142 Mystic owns 134 Mystic. And the 134 Mystic is a very tight and narrow driveway off of Mystic Avenue. It's a long lot. So In reference to future development, the ask is that there may be shared parking at 142 Mystic when 134 Mystic is developed. So that would be the one area in which we are looking relief from this board, is that's one area that we've looked at and we believe that's the one area we're looking for relief. And so we didn't feel like it was necessary to do something in lieu of that. So we actually put pickleball courts in off of the, Kyle if you want to go towards the beer garden. So right here, I'm going to zoom in a little bit. Two pickleball courts in open to the public. So I'll move on and we can go back to that.
[Zac Bears]: But yeah, we can go back to that. All right. So the next thing, bike rack of at least 15 feet in length. We have done that. You can kind of see it's blurry in the image here, but it is listed on the civil engineering plan as well. But it's right here. Applicant to include two loading bays at the rear, that is included. It's again, more detailed on the civil plan. You can see it, and they are clearly labeled. Next is applicant to include provisions for running electrical conduit for future electric vehicle parking for at least seven parking spots. We have it on the landscape plan and the civil plan, all labeled for EV.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, correct. Yeah, we're actually gonna we found a grant program where we're actually going to be. Our plan is to have them open on opening day. So, super. Yeah. Yeah, so that's on the civil plan you'll see the conduit. Applicant to provide a phase plan for inclusion of fully functioning electrical vehicle parking to the office planning developments sustainability. We have already hired a power management company. We are in that process right now. And as Brian said, we are hopeful that we'd have it even operational by opening day. Okay, so next is the applicant to include parking lot lighting and outdoor lighting in accordance with Medford City Ordinance. We provided the Omni Beer Hall site plan, which is outdoor parking lot lighting in accordance with the Medford City Ordinance. We provided a full lighting plan. It's actually on slide 30. I mean, if you want to show it. Yeah, it's in the packet that was sent to the board. I'm capped out at 25 here, Brian.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Thank you. But there's this right out there. We can come back to that if you want. Yeah. I'm going to include permeable beavers to the outdoor beer garden patio. permeable beavers are included on our plan in the outdoor beer garden in Applicant to include an appropriate barrier around the perimeter of the beer garden patio. Applicant to use an industry standard of planters and guardrails that is compliant with the applicant's liquor license. So if you can kind of see, it's in here. We're working with the architects on how to make this as visually appealing and visually aesthetic as possible. So we can go into that a little bit more if you want more detail in our architects on the call to discuss options. But that is our plan. Applicant to provide ADA compliant pathways from the parking lot to the building. We have done that. We see the civil engineering plan. Applicant to include trees and plantings per the landscape requirements listed in City Ordinance 6.3. The landscape plan was created in August. The new landscape plan that you're seeing before you tonight is in accordance with Ordinance 6.3. And then the only concession we had to make was that one small one with the fire chief on that side facing Atlas Liquor.
[Zac Bears]: I mean Michael Giuliano was on the call can can speak to that I mean we wouldn't get a building permit if we were.
[Zac Bears]: Andrew, are you on the call? Can you speak to that for square footages?
[Zac Bears]: Andrew is our architect from Vision 3 Architects.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we never garden is the permeable pavers and the the poured concrete mix.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so the next thing was applicant to evaluate, reassess and report on traffic circulation, public access and pedestrian circulation. The reassessment is not limited to but shall include concerns about people crossing the parking lot, vehicle access and inclusion of tighter radius curb edging. So this was all done with, we hired a third party traffic engineer and we've attached that letter and made adjustments to the site plan based on some of the information from that traffic study. We've also been in close contact and working with Director Blake on these issues. And I think if you have any questions regarding any of that, we can go through it more, but I believe we've reached from what I understand, a satisfactory condition on the site. The site circulation aisle provides a 24-foot drive aisle, which is sufficient to accommodate two-way traffic flow throughout the site and accommodate turning maneuvers to and from perpendicular parking. The proposed pedestrian accommodations, including sidewalk internal to the site and designated pedestrian crossing areas, will provide for safe pedestrian connectivity between the proposed building and the parking field serving this project. The loading dock and the dumpster area has been located in an area to minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular traffic and loading activities for this project as well. So we feel like we've satisfied that. Those are direct quotes from Sean Kelly, who's of Vanassie & Associates, who did our traffic survey. And I believe we could... which leads us into the next thing, which is the applicant to work with the city director of traffic and transportation to maintain existing bus access.
[Zac Bears]: I can speak.
[Zac Bears]: So David, I met with Marianne O'Connor talking about demolition. I met with the fire chief to talk about the return access. I actually did took all these meetings on my own. We don't have really the funds in the budget for an attorney or an engineer to do it. took it upon myself. So I handed in, I met with Vanessa and associates. I talked about the issues that came up in the board. And the big thing that came up was the vehicle, sorry, the truck delivery access in and out. So on the loading dock, they're going to back in and then they're going to need to take a left to go out through that main aisle. I can't have delivery trucks going straight to where that parking is. and then going and then making that turn. It just, the turn axis doesn't work as good as that main aisle. So I met with, you know, Alicia, Dan Hill, Amanda, and I proposed this idea of one way in that parking lot. So when you take that left, you can't come back out the way you came in. You have to head, you have to go towards Mystic Ave. And that's something I submitted after the fact, after our meeting, after this was done.
[Zac Bears]: I made it and I sent it over after our meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, exactly. Yeah. So the blue line is the truck turn access, and that red line is the one-way traffic of how our customers would access the In-N-Out.
[Zac Bears]: And our deliveries are not when we're open either. They're in the morning. So no customers.
[Zac Bears]: If it's up to the applicant, it'd be more important for us to, you know, move forward with this project tonight. I don't mind. I don't mind. We've already waited three hours. We can go through each piece.
[Zac Bears]: We've been here for three hours. And you're gonna tell us that we have to wait another week. That's a no fault of our own. We've prepared all our documents.
[Zac Bears]: Want me to share my screen?
[Zac Bears]: So yeah, this is the I just wanted to show that I know there's the rule where you need to have a tree shade every 10 parking spaces. So this is the proposal.
[Zac Bears]: There'll be a tree in each one of those green spaces.
[Zac Bears]: Kind of the same trees that are... Exactly, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: You say decrease the size of the green?
[Zac Bears]: I don't think we do, uh, just, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we'll have so it's as long as we don't have that parking demand, for that space, which during the week we don't anticipate it at all, probably on the weekends. But yeah, we're going to provide the nets and we're going to provide the lines. And since it's open to the public, given the current conditions of Mystic Ave, I can't imagine there's anywhere that's open for pickleballs.
[Zac Bears]: I think we have enough buff. We have enough buffer with the landscape. Maybe we can zoom in on it. But no, I don't think that's going to be an issue. If it is, we'll do some sort of netting.
[Zac Bears]: So I could weigh in and give you more information here on the line if you'd like, if it helps. It's tight. It's so tight right now. There's the driveway aisle of 134 and 142 Mystic. And it's just a really narrow, long site. And so that the landlords want to be able to use some of the parking at 142 Mystic to develop 134 Mystic. And I'll just give you an example. There's this building in Woburn, it's one of the Cummings buildings, and it's a long, narrow lot similar to what we have. They divided it up into these nice, pretty cool retail use buildings. That's why the idea is that's been kicked around, and I'll just show you right here. I just put this together, but if we were to do something like that, this row would be that shared parking for the 134 Mystic redevelopment, we'd be looking for rock climbing gyms, golf simulators, a coffee shop, gyms and yoga studios.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. So the picture, the picture in the middle is the is the The difference in grade between 134 Mystic and 142 Mystic, the picture on the right is the grade between the Verizon building and 134 Mystic. So any redevelopment is going to require that building to be demoed and something new to rebuild. And so when that happens, we would raise the grade up. It's like 134 Mystic is like sunk below the Verizon building and below 142 Mystic just for whatever reason. It's just been like that forever. And so we would raise the grade to be equal to 142 Mystic to be able to use that shared park.
[Zac Bears]: I'll tell you that it's a long like narrow site so the thought is to build another building sort of like the like what we have with the beer hall facing each other.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Because we don't, right now the driveway aisle is right here. It's so tight on the current building. So to get to the back of 134 Mystic, this is the line right here. So we don't have the square footage to have the parking and a landscape buffer. I can't take it from 134 Mystic because the driveway aisle is too tight. And then I can't take it from 142 Mystic because we wouldn't have enough room for the parking.
[Zac Bears]: It was, it was important to the landlord that we keep it open, and it'd be this style parking. If you see, if you go to like assembly row and you see like how they do parking over there it's not typically angled parking.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, Todd, I wanted to meet with you as soon as possible to go over the process, just so I understand it better. And get modern traffic engineer to draw the plan and just walk me through how it works with mass dot. I think that's making a really good effort, like right away. I don't want to wait to the very end to do this. I want to do it now.
[Zac Bears]: Can I just say one thing? Just going back to MassDev and going back to the bank, like, jeopardizes everything for us. Even if it's a week, we would like to close on our loan. Changing the site plan sometimes changes. If we lose parking spaces, we'll change the factor of how the bank actually looks at us. And so I would like to take this as a recommendation. and move forward tonight. Is that at all possible.
[Zac Bears]: I understand I didn't mean to be disrespectful and just trying to be honest about our budget.
[Zac Bears]: It affects everything, our lease.
[Zac Bears]: I can make a good faith effort and ask, but right now I'm locked into, you know, I'm locked into the funding. I could go back and say, Hey, look, this is what the board said. And can we make this change? I just don't want to jeopardize kind of losing what we have with everyone involved in this deal.
[Zac Bears]: I realized that, and I handed in everything so far in advance with the intention of getting feedback really far in advance. And if changes were to be made, I could have went to the landlords. I could have went to the bank and said, hey, here's what we're hearing. And again, I took the time to meet with all these people. I didn't have an attorney do it. I didn't have an engineer do it, an architect do it. I did it myself. David? Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: If you don't feel comfortable with the design, I guess, I guess that's it.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, the owners own that it's the same landlords as one 42 mystic, the same people own one 34 mystics. So the whole idea was that when they go to develop one 34 mystic, that becomes shared parking because 134 Mystic is very tight and narrow on the Mystic Ave side. So without that, 134 Mystic becomes, I don't know, 50% like the value because you literally can't develop it without parking it.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, no. So here is the current condition right here. See that driveway aisle?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So this is the, This is the rough property line right here.
[Zac Bears]: It's inside the red rectangle. Can you go back to the photo? Sure. The current building is the property line.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, where that bus is, where that building is to the right, that is the property line. 134 Mystic, the current building is right there on that drive aisle. It's so tight to drive in there. I can't take.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, but they're owned by the same landlord.
[Zac Bears]: If that works, then it sounds like... Are you saying to put a landscape buffer in between 134 and 142 Mystic?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so the left-hand picture is the drive aisle for 134 Mystic Ave.
[Zac Bears]: What was the question? I'm sorry. I thought that was what you were asking.
[Zac Bears]: No, I didn't I didn't, I didn't say that I brought it to the landlord's attention, and this is the way they prefer to do it. I didn't, it's not like I didn't, I didn't look at it and said, oh, I don't want to do that. You know, screw that. That's not the case at all. I brought it to their attention.
[Zac Bears]: It's something they don't want. It's, it's what they asked of me. It's what's in our lease. This is the site plan that they wanted. And they've, they've owned this for a long time. Same as the other one.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, yeah, it's yeah, it's just because we're related doesn't make it easy. Trust me.
[Zac Bears]: In further review, we actually found that there was some conditions on that even prior to the reconfiguration so it's not just a reconfiguration thing. My recommendation would be twofold, would be to approve pending any comment or feedback from the Community Development Board, as well as the six day public comment period, if we can amend to that.
[Zac Bears]: I was gonna say at least it's another bank. So, but on this specific motion after we open the public hearing I just, I would, I would like to make the same motion that we made on the prior special permit, but I'll wait for the public here to be open for the discussion accounts at this time.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: It's under reports to it's the elections manager and elections commission.
[Zac Bears]: It's 23026, it's the last thing on the last page of the agenda.
[Zac Bears]: And just to clarify, this is because we created our priest, the state made it there, they did their redistricting after we did our reprieving thing. So there's some people who are in. Basically, there's two legislative districts that overlap precinct boundaries inaccurately. So there's a piece of a precinct in one state rep district and a piece of a precinct in another state rep district. And that's because they, I just wanted to clarify how we got here.
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate the solutions focus. I just wanted people to understand. It was the pandemic delay in the census that then the state house decided to force us to re-precinct before they redistricted. So for the first time in probably 200 years, we had legislative districts that didn't line up with precinct boundaries.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, I'll second Councilor nice motion I just want to say thank you to the elections manager the Elections Commission for coming down for putting together this report. One of the reasons I was hoping you guys would come down to present it is that I could read it but I don't have all the context that you all have that maybe in between it and I don't want to say something out of turn you know I requested this originally so I really appreciate appreciate this being presented. I didn't want to read this and then not be able to answer a question from a colleague or say something that maybe had there's been an update since the report was filed or anything like that but I really appreciate the thoroughness of this, it seems like, you know, a, the transition that there's a lot of work going into the transition and it's it's you know, identifying places where processes need to be addressed and improved. There were a few complaints from the last election there's a real solutions focused energy on getting all of that right this time. So I just I appreciate that. and I appreciate the open dialogue and I know it's you know formally us be it resolved that we request this and then be it resolved that you better get this back to us and come down and tell us about it it's a very formal process but I wanted it to be a dialogue I didn't want it to be written communications me reading something you saying something I felt like it was better if we could come down and if anyone had any questions or if there was additional context that you wanted to provide that you've been able to provide it so I really appreciate that and I know that thank you for the offer I'm sure that If we see anything as we lead up to the next election, we'll be sure to be in touch with the commission and the elections manager about it. Thank you, Council.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Director. Just for being here. Three questions. One trees. Is there any way in the plan to preserve more of the mature trees that are currently on site?
[Zac Bears]: Second, just a little bit more on the on the kind of notification and process for existing residents and kind of neighboring of butters. Can you just go into like when residents were first informed, and how many times they've been informed you don't have to be exact on it.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and along those same lines. for the residents during construction? Are they either going to be housed during construction if they can't if their units being demolished or rebuilt? And will they have the right to return?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. That's really important. Last question is a little bit bigger picture, and if you don't have the answer in front of you I totally understand it.
[Zac Bears]: It's not a curveball but it's just kind of in the larger context. I'm no expert on this but my basic understanding is that there's something called Fairchild that's federal law and that is the maximum number of public housing units that we could have in the city. How far below that are we and how much does between this project and 121 how close does that bring us up an excellent, an excellent question again, faircloth faircloth.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much for answering the question. You're welcome. And having it, even though you weren't.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. As folks know, with the end of the pandemic emergency orders, I think both at the federal and state level, I think they're happening concurrently on the same day, sometime in early to mid-May. That is changing federal and state rules around MassHealth, which is the Massachusetts Medicaid program for the past three years people have been able to stay on the program without re enrolling and meeting all those requirements so they may be at risk after this expires of losing their health insurance and not really being aware of it given that there hasn't been the ongoing education and programming needed on that. and state advocates for health care are asking is that local communities also make this a priority to make sure that when they're communicating with residents that they are including this information and providing access to state and federal resources. Obviously, the city can't, you know, do this work for folks, but they can make people aware that this is coming up. and can share them the resources that already exists from the state and the federal government. So I just like to request to make sure from the city administration that they are following that best practice as as requested.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. This is the first of three. proposals tonight on the council agenda relative to specific charter amendments to the city charter. We first discussed this over a month ago and regular session and we had a committee of the whole meeting this month on the matter, and I really appreciated the thoughtful comments of all my colleagues on this issue. I think echoing what that Councilor Caraviello said our committee of the whole is that this really focuses on the city council around a purpose which is making sure that we have the authority that we need to conduct oversight and and also to make sure that we are having real voice and input and bringing the people's voice and input to the city budget. I think I won't rehash everything that we've discussed in the past two times. We've discussed this, but the city charter of the city of Medford, as acknowledged by many, many elected officials, including the mayor, is one of the strongest planning charters in the Commonwealth, which means that the mayor's office is incredibly strong and the council's powers are not so strong. And this is one way that we can take action very quickly through some common sense measures to rectify that and make sure that the city council not just should be a partner but must be a partner at the table. When it comes to things like the city budget and appointments of members of boards and commissions and making sure that we have the legal advice that we need, which kind of came up tonight once again and it comes up pretty much every meeting that we have the legal advice and support that we need to make the best decisions possible. on this and the other two proposals. I'm going to motion that we schedule a public meeting of the ordinances and rules subcommittee and committee of the whole, um, per discretion of the council president to discuss these matters, and then that we also schedule a public hearing that is required by Chapter 43 B section 10 at our May 23rd regular meeting, and that will give enough time as notice is required for the city clerk to do the required notices for that. So that's my proposal. two more meetings on this where we can collect more public feedback and then a public hearing on May 23rd. Then pursuant to the discussion, if there are any amendments to these proposed amendments, any changes to these proposed amendments, that can happen in that public hearing. And then the Council and my fellow Councilors are at the discretion to vote on this, the process after that. And I'll just go over this again, not to belabor the point, it would require a two thirds vote of the City Council, the assent of the mayor, submission to the state attorney general for review, and then it would be voted on by the voters in our November election. So, again, this is not just something that we can do on our own. There's a lot of pieces of the process, the ideas, and with my hope to have everybody on board so that we can move forward and make sure that this council and the people that elect these councilors have the powers that we need to do our jobs effectively. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: So we have a motion from vice president bears to send this to the ordinance and rule subcommittee second by it's a it's sorry to be more detailed about the motion that maybe is necessary, but it would be to schedule public meetings of the ordinances and rule subcommittee and the committee of the whole on this topic and to hold a public hearing on at our May 23rd regular meeting as required by Chapter 43 B section 10.
[Zac Bears]: I think the way this is going, it's technically that there will be, it's not going to ordinances and rules subcommittee per se. It's just that the ordinances rules subcommittee could have a public meeting to request public feedback on it. The amendments would actually by law have to happen at that public hearing. So I guess in some sense, the papers never chapter 43 B section 10 authorizes the city council to authorize a committee to hold meeting on the matter. But the decisions have to happen at the public hearing so it's just different than anything we normally do because it's a specific process outlined by constitutional amendment and then it's enabling legislation. So that's why I'm proposing the amendment the way I'm proposing it. You want to vote it out that'd be great though, just okay yeah we'll definitely vote to at the subcommittee to make sure it goes back to the council. Okay. Yeah, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. If it wasn't an amendment to the City Charter, I would have motioned to not read it, but I think as it's a proposed amendment to the City Charter, it needs to be read at least once in full. All in one breath. That's, you know, amazing, amazing present.
[Zac Bears]: I would move the same motion that I made on the previous paper to schedule the public meetings and then hold a public hearing on May 23rd at our regular meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and feel free, Councilor Collins. I was just going to say that, yes, there'd be a public hearing, but then it would need to be approved by the mayor, reviewed by the state attorney general, and then voted on by the voters on the ballot as a ballot question. So it wouldn't just be the city council saying, this is what it is. That certainly is not how the law works. It would be the voters of the city approving a change. And I just want to also add that this is not charter review. These are specific amendments to address specific problems that we've seen. There are portions of charters that exist in many other communities. Charter review, which would look at everything, would look at ward representation, would look at you know, a bunch of other things that would potentially write a completely new charter compared to the charter that we have now. That's a separate process. That's the thing you can get signatures to collect for. That's where you can have a home rule petition at the State House to do a comprehensive review. Most of the things that people talk about when they talk about charter review, you can't even do through this amendment process, which is very specific to the balance of powers. You can't change mode of election, terms of election, or the districts that people are elected from. So this is much more targeted than a comprehensive charter review. This is saying very specifically, we have seen what a disempowered council looks like, and that the council by charter does not have the powers that it needs to assert its authority as an independent branch of the city government as to address the separation of powers, and this is specifically targeted at that. These amendments wouldn't even give the city council unilateral discretion on any of this anyway. It would just give us an equal share of voice in these questions. So thank you for the comments, and I appreciate it. I hope folks will come to public meetings and voice that, and we can do the education work, and we can also consider what voters are saying and residents are saying about these amendments over the next few weeks.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, for reading that out loud. I appreciate your deference on these. This one is the final of the three amendments that would actually amend our existing charter regarding appointments by the mayor to require city council approval of municipal boards, committees, and commissions. The rest of the language, there's some language in here that remains from the existing charter. So for example, obviously this would not apply to the school committee or officials appointed by the governor or assessors if elected by the vote of the people, as well as it would not apply to heads of departments, which is what our current charter says, but it would apply to members of boards, committees, and commissions created by ordinance of the city of Medford. and I would follow the same motion to hold these public meetings and hold a public hearing at our May 23rd regular meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Motion for a five minute recess.
[Zac Bears]: What was the initial paper number?
[Zac Bears]: I'd move the five-minute recess.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President. President Bears. If I may, as the person who filed the, or who moved to receive and place this on file. I did that at, you know, 14, 15 months after the paper had been filed, not with the intention of starting a cooling off period the day that I moved to receive it and place it on file. As I read the rules, obviously, regardless of my intention, that was its effect. I would move to suspend the rules to take the paper under consideration. It's up to the council to vote on that if they want to or not.
[Zac Bears]: A motion to overrule is the chair.
[Zac Bears]: Can I not also move to suspend the rules to take the paper to suspend rule 25 or whatever it is to take the paper. We have the authority to do that. Paper was just disposed of.
[Zac Bears]: Well, the rules are set by a majority of the council, which can suspend the rules at any time, which we do often.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to take papers 23-044, 23-059 off the table for they're eligible for third reading and to approve.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion. Description of what they are. It is the loan order for sidewalk construction and equipment bonds of the non-union COLA.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I completely agree with Councilor Scarpelli that we should not be in the position of cutting any positions. And quite frankly, my understanding of the city budget is that it's and the state funding that's coming in, etc, is not that We don't have the money to fund things, it's that the money will not be allocated by the single authority who can allocate said monies to fund things. So I just don't want us and again I understand exactly where you're coming from. I don't want again this council will be put in the position of falling into the trap of the false narrative setup that says we don't have the money because that's just not true. It's how much are we willing to allocate is the mayor willing to allocate for the city budget for the public school system and for the city departments. my understanding of the information that we have received which I agree with you is not as complete as we want it to be for sure, is not that the money is not there, it's that we're being quote unquote prudent, and we're being quote unquote fiscally conservative, and I don't believe that we should be doing that at the expense of firing city employees are laying off city employees. And I think if we accept that the dollar amount is the dollar amount that the whatever the mayor says goes. then that's coming to us and putting a scarcity mindset on us that actually doesn't exist. It's just that we don't have the authority to countervail it, right? And that there's only one political actor in the city that does. On these specific items, we're talking about a bond issue that we do regularly for sidewalk construction and equipment. It's a bond issue, so the costs are going to be over a long period of the bond. So the actual costs of the city are significantly smaller on an annual basis compared to the amount of the bond. And then the second piece is is cola money that's under $100,000. Four weeks ago, I think this council unanimously voted to approve $2 million in free cash to go to new fire trucks. I'm not saying that was a good thing or a bad thing. But we're talking about an order of magnitude less than that we're talking about 100,000 to 200,000 not $2 million. And finally, again, like the second piece of it, the cola piece of it. You know, I don't think teachers should be there should not even be a threat or consideration of any staff at our city at our school system at all being threatened at all in this budget. The fact that that's a discussion we're having is a choice by the person who says this is how much money you're going to get in the school system which is none of us and quite frankly none of the school committee except for the chair of the school committee. There's cola adjustments for people who work in this community who work in City Hall who haven't gotten raises for four years. So when I, when I should that be allowed to happen either absolutely not. These are people who work for the city who deserve fair compensation just like every single worker in the city, and our public school system deserves it. Do I have the choice today to approve a fair union contract for certain workers? No. Do I have an authority to say to the school department, to the mayor, the school department shall have this and there shall be no layoffs? No. Do I have the authority technically before me as one seventh the authority at the very least to say that people haven't gotten raises for four years should get raises? I'm going to say yes to that, because that's a good thing. I said this before when we discussed this at its first reading, I don't think the mayor cares. I don't think us voting no is going to change position on union negotiations at all. I just don't. So there's no gain to leave it on the table. In my perspective, I respect other opinions on that. I respect other positions on that. But there is loss, and I'm not willing to take loss for no reason at all, when that loss could mean city employees no longer working here because they haven't gotten raised in multiple years and want to move to another community or agency. So again, I respect the principle of where everyone's coming from. and the fact that we need more information, but I don't think that we should allow the scarcity mindset of one elected official in the community to determine how all of us act.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Bears. Thank you, Madam President. Two things I'll get out of the way before I get to what I was actually going to say. there has been a lot of work by council leadership to get information that shouldn't have taken a lot of work to get, but some of that information is coming through and hasn't come through before. We have a quarter three budget to actuals. We have warrant articles for March, 2023 and some prior months. We have warrant articles for legal expenses. Is it everything we've asked for? No. Should have taken as long as it needed to, to get to us. Absolutely not. And in that, I completely agree with my colleagues. Second piece of this, again, like this is difficult. It's not that I don't want to stand by my principles, it's that multiple principles are in conflict. Right? It's not just department heads who are going to get a coal erase. And this, this equipment thing that we're talking about we're talking about Mike Wentzel said the same thing that about chief Friedman's order for the fire trucks that he said about this equipment. If we put in the order now it'll take a year. If we don't it could take a year and a half. Right now the chief said two years three years that's fine. I don't want to debate the specifics because principles are in conflict. The reason principals are in conflict are the reasons that everyone has said and everyone has shared, which is that the process is not what it should be and we are not included in the people who need to be included in a process to build trust and engender a trust and build a good relationship and get a good work product is not happening and needs to happen. Now, we just earlier tonight voted on specific tools and amendments to give us more leverage and authority that quite frankly, again, I think even the mayor when she was a Councilor said that the council should have to make sure that there's a fair and balanced process. But again, my principles are in conflict here because there are people who are not department heads who fall in the non-union category more than you would think. Yes, department heads fall into it too. Yes, department heads fall into it. If I could just, I didn't interrupt you and I'd be happy to hear your response. The people who fall into it who say the same thing that I'm hearing from union workers who say they shouldn't have gotten a raise, that they need a raise and they haven't gotten it and there's a reason that they need it because they need to support themselves and their families. Are those people gonna leave the city too for the exact same reason? And should I be forced to pit those two groups against each other? Absolutely not. But that's not the authority that is given to me. That choice has been made for me by the person who has that authority. So now I have the choice of disappointing one group or another group and one group not getting what they want. And I don't even have a choice to give them what they want or another group not getting what they want because, and what they deserve, because we're holding up something that they deserve and they have a right to because we're being forced to pit people against each other in this room. So again, when I was talking earlier about the scarcity mindset, that's the trap that we're all being boxed into. One, because quite frankly, we don't even have the authority that we should have to have an equal voice in the conversation, which is something we're working on. And two, yes, there is a dearth of information. So I do agree that we should have more information. But again, when we're talking about here, the bond order or a less than $100,000 wage adjustment. And the choice is that we could reject those and probably do nothing because the people listening don't care if we reject it generally, or we could actually make some positive progress. I'm going to pick the positive progress side. And it's not that I'm going to feel good in the morning about it or bad in the morning about it, because I'm going to feel both in the morning about it because my principles are in conflict. And the principle that I want to put forward to support working people by voting against this, I gain nothing on that. The principle to support working people who aren't in the union, I actually harm if I vote against it. I don't want to belabor this anymore, but I also don't want to cut off further discussion. I respect my colleagues who don't vote for it, but it's really just a question of, punishing people who have no role and voice in this, because the people that should have their backs don't have their backs in the way that they should. And I'm not going to be the person at the end of the day who punishes someone and makes them suffer for something they had no role in creating, because I just don't fundamentally think that's fair. And I respect the people who think that that's not holding the line because I want to hold the line too. And I'm, I'm I've said it every time we've talked about this, I'm deeply conflicted on it. But that principle is what I draw on when I make my final call here. I could see it the other way. On a different day, I could see it the other way. It sucks. And it's not the position we should be put in. And that's where I think on this larger concept and the larger issue at hand, we do all agree. So I hope that we can, in good faith, work to create solutions that create a better process for everyone so that we're not put in a position of pitting people against each other or punishing or causing harm to people for no reason that they created. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: We've rejected 16 of the 18 CAFs. So by any respect, we are basically the opposite of a rubber stamp. they're two for 18, wouldn't even be a good record and for a bait, you know, wouldn't even be a good average for a hitter in baseball. And again, in my opinion here, the inaction is what is what's going to cause the harm and the actions not going to I respect the other opinion, but I just don't I don't like the idea of it being framed that by doing this, we're not supporting the workers or a rubber stamp because 90% of the time we're doing what they ask. And there are specific cases that come up and we hear about specific harms that may be caused by inaction. I don't wanna be in that position, but I'm also not gonna actively harm people. In my opinion, what I feel is active harm. So that's it. I just don't wanna be pigeonholed, which I felt like that was happening a little bit. Again, I'm not saying, that you're not supporting people by not voting for it, but you're saying by voting for it, that I'm not supporting people. And that's just, it's a little farther than I'd like this to go, but I respect where you're coming from on this.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President. Vice President Paris. Motion to take paper 23-060 off the table.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I just had a question. Well, first, I just wanted to say to what Councilor Caraviellol was speaking earlier about free cash. My understanding, at least from the revenue discussion that we had in the committee of the whole recently, is that the administration has been underestimating local receipts portion of revenue and over and estimating at least highly the amount of expenses such that having done that there is now a significant surplus free cash, of course, is a horrible term for what it actually is, which is the reserves of the city is built up by surplus collection of tax revenue. I believe Councilor Collins made an incredible point recently about a month ago talking about how. that surplus and that balance of that surplus means that there are things whether that be collective bargaining agreements, or sidewalk repairs or the school funding or any of the many other things that we think need to be happening and should be happening urgently, that were not funded instead for that money to sit in the non interest bearing reserve account. So we have that money. It's more than any bond agency says we need to have in reserves. So when I talk about a scarcity mindset, and what we're talking about with the schools, right, they were talking about needing about 74 million and they suggested appropriations gonna come as about 71.8 million, so that's $2.2 million. That could come from this pool of money, which is essentially money that could have been in the budget, instead was not in the budget, went to a surplus fund. You know, and may have also played into last year's discussions around structural deficits as well that maybe we're actually smaller than we thought because there's this surplus tax revenue. I just want to ask Director Dickinson, if I could. Has there been any adjustment to the cost of this paper after the city council voted to remove any elected officials from the cola.
[Zac Bears]: We removed at our last meeting, the mayor and the city council were included in the COLA. And I'm just wondering if the removal of those positions that we all unanimously voted for has changed the amount of the appropriation for free cash for the COLA. Oh, your microphone's not on. Shane, can you turn on the microphone at the podium?
[Zac Bears]: And I just want to confirm it that the mayor and the city council are not included in this.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. I just want to make sure because that's they were when we first looked at it and then we voted to exclude. So thank you, Director Dickinson. I appreciate the detailed response. Or the response.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve for third reading or just motion to approve.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, we met on the waste tolerance ordinance which has kind of changed into just updating the chapter 70 solid waste section of the city ordinances, there was a lot of issues with the existing language that's going to be addressed by the waste hauler ordinance. Anyway, we're pretty close. I think we just need to take one more quick pass at it. Building commissioners involved, health director, planning director, and DPW commissioner. So we have an all-star team working with us. Move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to suspend the rules to take paper 23-090.
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Madam Superintendent, for being here. I certainly agree with Councilor Knight's point that this is something that we submit regularly and we should submit. I'm really grateful to hear that the improved application that was submitted last year was seen significantly better than prior applications. I think that's great news. I think it reflects the work that went into that, you know, I think the big issue that we're, you know, not necessarily dancing around I think we're trying to go at it right is that the city doesn't have enough resources to replace school buildings, the state has determined that cities don't have the resources to replace school buildings. and created the MSBA for the purpose that we need new school buildings in the Commonwealth and obviously I'm in for high school needs that I think, you know, maybe many, many of us behind this real can attest to it but Councilor Tseng and I probably most recently and, and, you know, my locker was in the very cold overpass on the second floor of C building, and, you know, while I appreciate Medford High School in the building for what it is significant improvements need to be made you know I for one. I'm just hopeful that we can get into this program and that the state will recognize our need. The building has major, major, major needs. not just the HVAC systems and the infrastructure and the structure of the building or the AV or the technology or all of that, but quite frankly, just the size of the building, it's not built for the group that's there now, it's not built for the team that's there now and that causes issues and those issues need to be addressed as well. So I'm really hopeful that MSBA will accept our application and we can start to move forward those important community discussions about addressing Medford High School. So thank you for submitting this and I'll be supporting it.
[Zac Bears]: I second Councilor Knight's motion to approve.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilor Caraviello for putting this forward. I think definitely we can move on this right away. I've heard making sure at least that the chief has consulted in some way the fire chief. Probably going to want to bring the traffic folks down from the police department. But is there anyone else that you want us to invite to that meeting? Code enforcement in the building, Commissioner? Yeah. Okay. Great yeah and I agree with the point that you made again I don't know what property this was on in the area I don't know if it was a car shop and I'm just saying that to put that out there in advance because I know if I don't say that people will be frustrated but we did have, there was a fire, and there was a someone who was, I believe, killed in that fire in that area. And again I don't know the circumstance I'm not saying it was because of car parking or anything but again I think it just speaks to your point. around is that even the best use in the area? And that's a long conversation and I know a lot of people obviously have livelihoods that depend on the businesses there, but I also think we can't just be packing, packing, packing cars and car repair shops in that area without addressing the negative effects that may come from that. So we'll work on it. Thank you, Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I think this makes sense. I think it's important that Tufts do this. I just want to note that the reason that that went into effect was a change in state law. The city didn't decide to change that. The state law changed on us. So that's why this new policy is in effect around mattresses. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just hearing Dover Amendment, Dover Amendment, Dover Amendment. Right. People don't get my joke that Tufts just says they're exempt from it, you know, pretty much.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so I think it makes sense now, but you know, I'm just, well, these are possible that they don't necessarily own.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President. motion to take and I apologize. Give me one second. Oh, sorry. We have one more. Never mind. I'll wait.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor. I have no problem with that. Um, but I just want to also state that this is the first, uh, paper over $1000 that we've seen in a while, and, uh, I'm hoping that this means that we're going to be seeing all the settlements over $1000 going forward for our approval, which is required. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: And I just want to add to that. I think that makes perfect sense. Cause if you look at the Warren articles we got sent, I didn't do it a specific count, but there were dozens of settlements in there. Um, many of them over a thousand dollars that we never saw quite frankly, and not to single you out Councilor Knight but didn't you receive a settlement for for damage $2,149 and 68 cents for two tires and a rim. Yes, I did Councilor Bish and speaks to the state of our roads and the money we need to put into that but also speaks to the fact that I don't think we've been driving one of the well maybe both but we didn't vote on that I don't believe right, and you obviously would have voted present or abstained but I'm just saying. But I'm just saying it never came before us. And, you know, again, I think there were probably dozens of those in the Warren articles that we saw over the past couple of years. And again, you know, it's just kind of the basic due diligence that needs to be happening. It isn't happening, so.
[Zac Bears]: Right, right, great. Yep, sorry. On paper, can we take paper, motion to take paper 23-052 from the table and approve for third reading. This is the amendment to Appendix A of the Code of Ordinance, which just adds the fee for the planned development district, which we created in the zoning ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: My mom will be there in about 10 minutes. She's going anyway, but I said she's going.
[Zac Bears]: Hi, everybody. First thing I want to say is happy Easter, happy Passover, and Ramadan as well. When we have a concurrence like that, I think it shows us that maybe we believe slightly different things, but we're all moving towards the same goal. And I also just want to take a moment in that spirit to just think about all the people who want to be welcomed and accepted who maybe aren't finding that right now here in Medford or anywhere in our country. So the question of aging, it's a big deal on all of those points. One suggestion I've heard about the ride, to go back to Eileen's question, is maybe the ride shouldn't be part of the MBTA, it should be part of elder services. And not to say that it only serves elderly people, but that may be a different view at it where it's not just one small piece of a large system, but really a direct focus on that might be an approach. But when we talk about what the city can do on the question of aging, or the question of ADA access, or the question of sidewalks and potholes and housing affordability, or really anything else, you know, something I think probably everyone up here is pretty much willing to say, at least at some point, is that it really is a question of a budget and revenue and money. And if we want to provide health care access, or we want to provide more senior housing, or we want to provide better paratransit, or we want to provide food assistance, or classes for folks, or programming for seniors, We need money to do that. And we don't have the money to do that right now. So when we talk about this question of aging and the aging that we're going to see in this city and in our state over the next 10, 15, 20 years, we're not prepared for it. I'm not trying to be a Debbie Downer. Sometimes you may watch city council meetings or you may see me and I sound like a broken record because I'm just talking about the budget and money and our needs to be prepared for these things all the time. But it's very important. Because at the end of the day, that's the main thing that a city government or a state government does. It allocates funding collectively to advocate for our needs. I see your hand, Roberta. I'm going to finish and then I'll go to you. But so that to me really is the question. I think we all admit that we don't have the money that we need to provide basic services. Until we're willing to have that conversation and really think about the different tools that we need to change that We're going to be working around the edges on these questions And that doesn't really help people a lot of people are hurt by that quite frankly so something that I'm I'm really hopeful and that the City Council is working on very strongly is working on a a budget ordinance which can better assess, show the public this is exactly what our budget process is, these are the steps to be involved, work on making that process more transparent, accessible, and bringing the community in so that we can have the values like this question about how we're gonna address the aging in our community and what resources we can bring to bear to that question in our budget. That's what I'm working on with my colleagues on the city council. I think all seven of us are passionate and committed to work on that. We've been working on that with members of the mayor's administration as well. And I think if we can really get a handle around the core issue here, which is we don't have the revenue to provide these services and to address the needs of our community and the problems that we face. If we can get our hands around that problem and come together around solutions and use every tool in our toolbox to fix it, I think we'll be in a much better place. It's not a direct answer just to this question, because I think this question is really interlinked with so many of the other policy questions and work that we need to do as a city government. And now there's three questions. So Roberta, Matt, and then Eileen.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I think that's a great idea. I mean, we have a lot of plans right now that we don't have the money to fulfill. And I don't have a problem adding another plan to the list, but it comes back around to we can have a lot of plans on the shelf, but if we don't have the money to implement them. But I'm not disagreeing with your point. I think that would be a great idea. Matt. There are a lot of ideas being thrown around to answer the substance of your question. Is there a long-term plan? No Yeah, I mean there's work that we're doing I mean we passed a zoning change that we have planned development districts There are projects that are coming in or they're definitely gonna help the city and bring more revenue to the city, but it's piecemeal it's ad hoc and and I think the question is if you can build a really open and transparent process where you can involve people and put a plan to paper and Then have goals and benchmarks where you're leading towards what your needs are and meet, you know Having the revenue to meet those needs. I think that's really the the golden goose on how we can fix this Eileen I
[Zac Bears]: That is a I don't have the answer to that. The state lawmakers are the ones who are appropriating that funding. There's some plans out there from Governor Haley as well, but I can't speak to the details. We'll probably know in late June, early July what the first round looks at once the House and the Senate have agreed on a budget.
[Zac Bears]: I think they are. I know Senator Jalen thinks that they are. Even if they are, and I'm going to get off the totem pole, and I want to hear from Senator Jalen, I would just say we may be in a wash in money right now. The long-term fiscal health of the state budget is in a similar situation, quite frankly, to the city, where we've actually had major revenue losses over the last 20 years. And that's why DCR has been cut by 35%, and the T's in massive trouble, and public higher education. God, I think anyone who knows anyone going to college knows what the debt burden and the tuition cost looks like there. So the state's not. You hear, oh, we have this surplus, we have this and that. But in the long run, it's in a pretty tight spot as well. Thank you. I know the mayor wanted to go.
[Zac Bears]: I'll be really short since I went really long last time. Thanks for indulging me. But I think what you just said also speaks, it brings us back to that point. We need to grow the pie. It can't be paraprofessionals don't get paid because teachers do or teachers don't get paid because paraprofessionals do because then at the end of the day, either the teacher or the paraprofessional or the student or the parents and the families or the whole community who needs Everyone needs resources and when we're pitting people against each other because the pie is too small It's it's not fair and and we all lose and Medford loses and I think you know again. I'm here with you know I appreciate the mayor saying the good things, because I've been saying all the bad things. I think there's so many great things that are happening in Medford, and I'm so proud to represent Medford and to have grown up here. But I grew up with this. I grew up when we cut music and art and recreation in the Great Recession. I grew up when my parents could buy a starter house here, and I can't. And I grew up at a time when people who grew up here could stay here, and now all my friends are gone. And I know everyone has a lived story like that, and it's because the pie is too small and the city can't help people, can't help the residents live here anymore. And it's a real problem. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: I'm an assistant since January 2020 I mean one or one of the end I know but nobody. Yeah, it's bad.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Mr. South for your presentation and for the information that you're giving us. You know, much respect to everyone who's here tonight but this clerical thing I mean I had people calling me or messaging me communicating with me last week and it's, you know, four and a half years a lot four and a half years for some of the lowest paid workers in the city is a lot more. And, you know, it's just, it's just, it's a shame we can use all the words that we want to use but you know, everyone deserves better than what they're getting in these long delays. put it in my calendar for the 13th and I'm gonna be there and I'm gonna appreciate that. the notice on that. The other pieces I wanna say is, and I respect my colleagues, their approach, right? We may not always agree on exactly the approach. Quite frankly, I don't think this administration cares what we do. I wish they cared more. I hear you on using our power in the best ways that we can. We've tried to use our power a lot and it doesn't seem to be making a lot of difference. I'm sure actually, probably you and your members sometimes feel a similar way that you've said your piece many, many, many times and it doesn't seem to be getting through their head, right? And, and so, you know, the piece of this discussion for me and I think the piece that all seven of us and you and I hope everyone in this room do do agree on is. know, this question around the finances, you know, if every other community can provide this, why can't we? And we're not getting a straight answer on that. And my response is, once we get a straight answer on that, if their answer, if we get a straight answer, we see the numbers, the math laid out before us, and the answer is no, then we have to say, okay, then how do we get the money to give a fair contract, right? And until we have that information, we can't even engage in that discussion. And that's the place that we want to be. I think all seven of us behind this council is to say, what is it going to take for us to be able to give a fair contract. And that's the answer we're not getting at all on any front and I'm sure you're not getting it and you're getting stonewalled as well.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. No, and that's much appreciated. And I hear you too. I mean, the minute that we saw that we were on the list and the mayor was on the list, I think all of us said, absolutely not. And we moved up, removed that immediately from the paper.
[Zac Bears]: And that's the line that, you know, we're not gonna do that when there's all these contracts out, it's not fair. So thank you. Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, while we're in suspension, we'll take paper 23-081 and 23-028. That would be the T in the address source presentation. Okay, so while we're in suspension, we request to take 23-081 and... 23-028. 23-028.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for being here. Thank you for acknowledging. We appreciate it. We definitely had several meetings over the course of the first First issuance comment period the re issuance of the of the network redesign, you know, some of our comments we felt were really heard around the 80 bus, but we didn't know that, that those comments would be then trading out the 94 I believe or is it the 96 I can't quite 94 to 94. So you know I think you know I spoke at the. the last public hearing as well. And I did hear that there may be room for some slight minor adjustments going forward, but that basically after the process was concluded, it felt like, you know, this is this is the network that you're going with. So I appreciate that. But I also, you know, definitely want to share that there's definitely still a lot of concerns. I live in a place where you know I used to take the 710 from my house when I was in high school down to the mall, and over to the hospital you know and then that was a bus we use and I understand where you're going with all of this but but that love that loss and moving from the express buses we have to now attach the Burlington Express bus route and you know there's there's just there's Some serious loss of service for folks, and the reason I just bring that all up is just my only question before we get into the Patty project details are any of these requests for elimination related to the bus network redesign of eliminating stops right now or is that all about the Patty project.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, but I guess more than that, and then we can talk about the specific details on the improvements. I guess just my question is, if we move forward on these eliminations of stops, is that because of PADI or because of bus network redesign? Or are you saying it's a bit of both because you're merging your work?
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to make sure while we, while we have you and, and again, appreciate you being here. Cause you know, I think there's one, one piece, you know, if it's the Patty project, which I know has been a long ongoing effort, that's one thing. If it's partially bus network redesign, you know, there may be more questions and engagement with the public that we need to make around the removal of stops. I don't think we'll have as much problem with the improvements on these specific locations. Obviously improvements are great. It's the removals where there may need to be a little bit more public engagement, especially given that kind of we were on our, you know, and again I appreciate the acknowledgement but we were kind of out on our own a little bit last fall and it was hard for us without having you here to give a presentation and then have members of the public be here for it and then maybe even ask us questions or. or provide some comment that we could then question, provide, ask questions on, you know, that was just a little bit of a breakdown where we have a lot of people who still have kind of outstanding concerns and questions. And I think moving forward with removal of stops at this time, if they're part of the network redesign, may just need a little bit more care in terms of the process. So I just wanted to ask that clarifying question before we got into the details, which I'm also very excited.
[Zac Bears]: OK, great. Yeah, and it's just because I see these here that make sense. Then we have, A, I'll say there's two of these stops around Winchester that you're asking for removal, so we can't help you.
[Zac Bears]: Is it crossing?
[Zac Bears]: So that's for our notification because maybe we have residents walking across the line. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: City way. But I appreciate the answer to the question and I look forward to the discussion. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I was just going to move that for the record that we request an RFP at Winthrop and Clewley or the Winthrop and Robinson intersection.
[Zac Bears]: let's go to, it seems like there's objections on G1, so we're gonna have to come back and revisit that.
[Zac Bears]: Right, both stops near, is that a disclosure or is that a review?
[Zac Bears]: Both stops on either side of my block are on this list, so.
[Zac Bears]: Just if we, but could we, if we could go through and just say, let's say G2, and if any council raised an objection, we could put our thing out there, And then that could go on a list for us to maybe come back and look at it.
[Zac Bears]: Bummer.
[Zac Bears]: It's a super dangerous intersection that needs help.
[Zac Bears]: I have one on this.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. In the 30% design thing here, are these bump outs, these gray areas?
[Zac Bears]: I would just move to Oh, sorry, go ahead. I was just gonna move to could we put in our RFP on the high street facing side. So is that possible even if we're not adjusting the crosswalk or the or the intersection design.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: There's a lot of lines in this thing.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. You actually, sorry, I raised my hand before you finished what you were saying and you answered my question. That is a bump out on the, yeah. So this is another one of those super dangerous intersections in the city and here, especially because you have a high speed, you know, coming off of the highway and, you know, people are coming off, pulling off to the right. You know, you end up with two lanes of traffic trying to come out of Hadley Place, one go left, one go right. And, you know, pedestrians and vehicles both are in a pretty tough situation there. So I appreciate these improvements. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: But just really quickly, is there going to be an RFP there? We had a pedestrian fatality, I think about 500 feet from this location pretty recently.
[Zac Bears]: I think if you could just relay.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we've had a again we had a pedestrian fatality there recently there's a lot of accidents you have multiple pull outs from the, from the plazas and BJ's is now going to be doing some work on their property a little bit down the street as well and I know that there's a mass focus on this area. to improve the safety of it, so I just think whatever you can do there would be much appreciated.
[Zac Bears]: I'm happy to make a formal motion that requesting additional pedestrian safety, including a RRFB at this location.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just going through them because I hadn't seen what councilor put out about the weekday ridership. The only one I have really any concern about is the two that I have any concern about are Bellsway at Central and Main Street at Windsor Road. So I don't know if you could talk.
[Zac Bears]: They don't have numbers.
[Zac Bears]: Or sorry, there's a number. It would be number three and number 16.
[Zac Bears]: Which is where, if you have that?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Can you just let me know which, like, are they going to have to cross central, you know, are they going to have to cross the Felsworth? Are they going to have to cross central? That's also kind of a dangerous intersection. And I get it, you know, some of these, the 0.1 rider per day, and I'm not quite to the 0.1 rider a day. I don't even, you know, who is it, you know, one person every 10 days or something, but like, you know, 50 people a day, it's not, that's pretty, you know, it's not nothing. It's probably marginal when your guys are looking at numbers that are much higher than that. But, you know, especially at a dangerous intersection on a, road where people speed where they shouldn't. I just want to make sure there's not any weird crossings that we're adding to people to walk another quarter mile or so, or a little less than that, but.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you. I'm just saying, I'm sorry.
[Zac Bears]: The only other one is Hyatt Hillside. It's like right near the Medford Public Library, our new library. And I just remembered, sorry, I just remembered that, sorry to jump in, but
[Zac Bears]: And so the next stop is up the hill at like Powder House or something?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I just, you know, a lot of people take the bus to the library. You know, maybe it's only 50 people a day. I think that's what it is in here, something like that. But that's just one I'll, I'd like to hold over if possible.
[Zac Bears]: and that's just the opposite of the central one, right? It's just the other side of the street, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I was just gonna see if you know if you guys so we have some of the requests for information, and it sounds like the council's an agreement that we want to kind of table this to a date certain so that we can do a little bit more outreach and residents can come to the meeting and if they like it they can say they like it if they don't they can say they don't we can kind of have that consideration. I just want to make sure for your guys purposes, it probably makes more sense to leave everything together rather than get on two different tracks here. Cause there's some, we don't have questions about some that we do. Is it okay if we just take the whole bulk and say table until that's Councilor Tseng his motion, but maybe to April 25th. And if that's a date when you could have the information back to us by on the requests that we've made, and then that gives us enough time to have communication with the public. Does that work?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Sounds like we're holding all of it. So you can ignore that.
[Zac Bears]: You can, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I think it's RFB.
[Zac Bears]: I think it's B, RFB.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: There we go.
[Zac Bears]: Just to go from what you said is now it's been worked out to do the nighttime so you can do the one pass on the rest of this.
[Zac Bears]: I'm sorry, just and I apologize if I am doubling back, but just to confirm. So let's say we mill Winthrop Street on the 418 to 420 timeline. We're not going to castings or paving, you know, castings next thing going to paving. If NatGrid starts installing gas lines on May 1, do you have to remill the road at that point before you pave it, or is it going to be not a huge disruption?
[Zac Bears]: OK. All right. And so, yeah, I mean, I know, I know you're in close communication with Owen. So maybe just, you know, maybe he didn't know about the National Grid thing either. Maybe they were, you know, it's not, it's, it's home gas lines, right? It's not a gas line. Yes. Right. So, um, Yeah, just just I just wanted to I hear you. That makes sense. What you said makes perfect sense to me that obviously, you don't want to pave the road while they're cutting it up the same day or you know, you're gonna have to coordinate around that. But I just think that's the one the one outstanding piece here that I've heard so far that just hopefully the coordination can go back and make sure that everyone that national grid has informed the city so that the city can coordinate with you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Much appreciated for your reading of this paper, for my colleagues' consideration, for the co-sponsorship of Councilor Tseng, and for our ICCM and JETPAC for working on this. I also know a similar resolution and commemoration. I think the first potentially in state history, although I'm not 100% sure on that, was requested of the governor and the governor did issue one as well, a proclamation recognizing Ramadan. It's an incredibly important month for Muslims in Medford across the world. And I think, you know, we have been recognizing the multi-faith, multicultural, you know, fabric of our community. And this is a role in that, plays a role in that. I think as we all know and have seen, Islamic Cultural Center of Medford has fast is fast becoming and has fast become, you know, you know, a key member of our key part of our community since it's moved into the square restoring the Isaac Hall house working with the city to gain CPA grants, you know, and I just think it's putting this resolution forward it's a it's a moment as it says in here, you know, joyous and meaningful observance and a month of prayer, fasting, charity, and reflection, I think, regardless of your faith tradition, or if you don't have a faith tradition, those are values that you can respect and hold. So, you know, thank you again for hearing me out, considering this, and we all support it tonight. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And first, just apologies, I didn't catch this, I think it's actually May 4th.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, so yeah, that may just- I had that in my head. That's my mistake, sorry about that. Yeah, I didn't catch it either. May 4th.
[Zac Bears]: And I only know that because I was looking through my email and I saw an email that said May 4th today.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, but yeah, but everything that Councilor Collins said I think stands strongly and this gives people even more time to plan and consider taking this on if you're watching this and you can make that day work for you and your family to participate in this. I think it's really, An important event and really shows, you know, we have in this community, especially you know I know it's at all levels but the high school level. we don't offer a universal busing at the high school. You know, we have folks on the MBTA, we have folks walking, we have folks driving, we have folks getting rides, you know, you have folks biking, you have a lot of different modes of travel going to the high school. One of the reasons this resource project is so important is because it's fixing the, you know, the gateway to the high school where you have, you know, our most precious resource and group of folks in the city, our young people. And we want them to be safe. And I think we all want that in all of the different contexts. We've talked about that many times in many different contexts, and this is one of them. This issue, we had a memorial outside of City Hall. This is just very personal to me. I lost a friend 10 years ago to a car accident. I thought I could do this without breaking down, but I still can't. We need to keep young people safe, so thank you.
[Zac Bears]: to outline in ordinance the budget process. We will have probably another discussion in subcommittee bring it to committee the whole move it forward it's, we're not going to be able to, I would assume implemented this year because it would have started three months ago already if we if we had. But, you know, we've had some great work we had director Dickinson with us. at the last meeting, and actually he was very, very supportive of the ideas and concepts behind it, you know, kind of saying, hey, you know, this is what we should be doing anyway, and I really think that was a great response, and really we were getting a lot of collaboration from him on it. The other piece of this ordinance, and I know this is a little bit long for some committee reports, so thanks everyone for bearing with me, but it's just so important, this budget process. The other piece of it is this needs assessment. That may take a little bit more time. Maybe we split it off, because it's just kind of a harder question, can we get something like what we now have for roads and sidewalks for buildings for departments for everything how can we start to quantify this question of code enforcement what would in-house dpw crews look like how can we build a process where we you know that's a big project to do once but once you've done it once and you figured out how to do it updating it annually is not as big a process and then we have a document that we can go on not just to say hey you know, Todd throws up his hand and says, we need this engineer this year, but what is our plan over the next two, three, five, 10 years to get to where we need to be? So thank you for indulging me and I move approval on the subcommittee report.
[Zac Bears]: This was on looking at a proposed condo conversion ordinance. Um, you know, we had a lot of initial discussions, uh, and, you know, we're planning to have further subcommittee meetings to really flush that out.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to suspend the rules to take paper 23-082.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, just two more things on that one. I replied to that email and said, you know, that's that's I'm glad we have a response on this question. But I added the question of is, you know, it's not just City Council rules, it's Massachusetts General Law. And I would just like a little bit more detail on on what we got back from, from them. The other piece of this and it goes back to your point is, you know, And, you know, I guess maybe I'm just gonna bring this up at every meeting till the end of time at this point, or at least to the end of the year. You know, at this at this point, I think that I'm hoping that we I appreciated our conversation last week about the idea of moving forward and making sure that we have the power on our own to bring people on board where we don't have to ask. Because making that small change along with a couple other small changes to allow us to appropriate the money and improve boards and commissions would go a long way to making this council significantly more forceful in our ability to hold the administration accountable. So I'm really looking forward to those discussions. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve for third reading.
[Zac Bears]: So, and I'm happy to do this for, I think I could do it for most of them. This is the housing stability notification ordinance. We worked on the notice to landlords and tenants about their rights when it comes to housing stability that goes out at the beginning of tenancy and the completion of tenancy. And the one thing I just wanna say while the clerk's working on the several roll call subsidies we have to work on for these several ordinances, is this, by and large, this is a body of work that this Council has done, that we have worked very hard to pull the pieces together to get things done in a very difficult environment that Councilor Knight just highlighted extensively. You know, I certainly agree with Councilor Scarpelli and Councilor Knight that, you know, I think our end of the process was done incredibly well and incredibly in a highly detailed fashion. And I'm incredibly proud of this work product that we're putting out. I mean, we're about to pass four ordinances that we worked on into third reading right now. I mean, I hope so. We haven't voted on them yet. I truly do hope so. But that's incredible work product. And I think it speaks to how invested this council is in doing the work that we should be doing and moving things forward and working collectively together. you know, Councilor Tseng just spoke to me for one second about the MBTA, and he was able to say that, you know, they thought this was like the best meeting that they've been to that we were on top of our stuff and you know maybe it went a little long, but they were very happy and I think quite frankly 95% of the time, all seven of us are invested in doing good work for this community. And in many cases we are doing that in spite of or trying to work around challenges that are presented to us by the city administration that we don't have control over. So that's a little bit longer probably than the clerk needed to write up all of these, these vote slips but. by and large, and I understand some of us may disagree on some of this, it may not be unanimous on every single one. That's okay, that's democracy, right? But we had the discussions, we had the public meetings, we worked through the public engagement. We're not always gonna get to 100% agreement on everything, but by and large, a lot of us agree on almost everything included in a lot of these things. And I think that speaks to our collective work together. And I appreciate each one of my colleagues as we move, again, this incredible work product forward. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I will motion to approve for third reading if you want to take his motion first.
[Zac Bears]: This is the community controller.
[Zac Bears]: Imagine how much more we could be doing.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: No.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, if I may.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Again, you know, as I said a couple of minutes ago, we were starting this exercise and I'm kind of bummed this is the last one of the six and not one of the earlier ones, but it's okay. And I think as I've said before to to Mr. South when the room is full and I kind of, you know, said tonight, you know, I don't think a blanket policy is the best policy. I don't disagree with the motivation whatsoever. It's just really tough for me to say, we're not going to do anything because I don't think the mayor cares. And that's the part of it. It's like, I'm willing to try to use the power and leverage that we have to achieve a goal. But I'm not willing and I'm not implying that this is what this paper is about. But I think taking, you know, going to the fullest extreme and saying we won't do anything on any financial paper, any classification, anything ever, you know, Something could write we had the fire department here last week about fire trucks and we weren't going to get fire trucks for 800 days and then it would have been 1600 days if we didn't approve it right and we all voted for it. And I we all I think shared the same record you know concerns about it right like we don't like how it's going but when the fire chief says we need to do pieces of gear so that buildings don't burn down. Well, and we should have more, and again, I can agree on the motivations, I can agree on the merits, and I can agree that it's not the perfect proposals that are coming before us, far from it. But for me, again, on this one, can I do a little bit of good for the city voting? Yes, yes. Do I think I do any good voting? No, no, because I don't think it's gonna change the mayor's approach. Now are there other things that I hope will and that I hope that we can hold lines on that we you know we held lines on those positions that came before us last December and last January for a year, we, we removed them from the table last week some of them sat for 15 months, shouldn't care, she just never hired these people. You know we got a list of 12 positions that were urgent and important for the city and then 15 months later when we took them off the table there was even a whisper. So if we hold this up, does she change her mind on all this other stuff either? I don't think so. Again, I've said this to other folks. I'm willing to admit I may be wrong. I'm 100% sure that everything I do is always right. I think that would be the... epitome of arrogance to feel that way. And I don't think anyone makes good decisions when they're acting that way. But I just personally think that there's some good that I can do supporting this paper tonight. And I don't see the good that comes by not supporting it. But I respect my colleagues for feeling differently because it's a catch 22 situation. I think at the end of the day, it's like, do this or don't do this. Who do you help or hurt? And if the answer is, you know, people are very hurting right now, and I hear that, and I've heard it very personally, not in public setting about how much people are hurting. Yes, and I completely respect and agree with that. But I've also heard from some other people who are hurting because things aren't moving forward that are getting proposed to us. And, you know, we may think we're putting the mayor in the bind, but she's putting these people in a bind. And that's the piece of the fairness that I have a hard time with. So again, I respect the difficulty of this, but that's why I want to move forward. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And again, I get where you're coming from on it. I think it's just two things for me. that work environment that you just described, I quite frankly think anyone who's willing to stay here and stick that work environment out to do good work for Medford, we shouldn't be the reason that they leave. And I understand, you know, and I understand that where you're coming from on it. The other thing is, I think in my memory, I think that, or maybe we shouldn't be the reason that we leave is not the right way to phrase it, but I don't want us to be the barrier because there's so many other barriers that these people are facing that you eloquently outlined that are really tough and they want to stay here anyway.
[Zac Bears]: And I said, yeah, we can have a diatribe on biggie but I'm familiar with familiar. No, and that's not what I'm saying at all I don't think that you should be able to get paid off to live in a hostel apartment I certainly don't agree with that I'm just saying people are sticking this out, and some of them are saying hey, this is what I need but the other piece I want to say to to your point, I think the mayor since January 22 is proposed 16 calf changes. We've rejected 14. So we're batting pretty high. And I agree, you know, you may want to be 100 I'm okay with 90 I think I'm fulfilling the principle you're fulfilling we disagree on it, that's okay with me but we're doing all right, in my opinion, but I see where you're coming from. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, I found the records in order and I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. This was regarding the proposed Waste Hauler Ordinance. We reviewed that in subcommittee. We also reviewed the existing ordinances around recycling. Per that review, we've gone back to Commissioner McGivern and Director Hunt for further comment, and we'll hopefully have another subcommittee meeting on that in the next few weeks to pass, or at least send to a committee of the whole, an updated draft of that ordinance that better fits with what we have in the city ordinances now and what we need out of that. We're also working with Director O'Connor.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. So something that council leadership, President Morell and I have been looking at with the city clerk over the past few months, going back to last fall is the meeting and agenda management software right now. We had the system from IQM2 that was installed in 207 and 201. That system is not really being used, obviously, since the pandemic. We were still signed up for a contract up until last fall that was costing some funds. And given the hybrid meetings that are now in our rules, given the setup of this chamber, given that Medford Community Media and the city administration have said that both 201 and 207 should also, at least at some point, be made available for those hybrid meetings. That software really was deprecated. It was not useful software. The camera technology is not compatible with the hybrid meetings that we use now, et cetera. In addition, it just is not great agenda software in terms of accessing information. So given that we weren't using it, hadn't used it for multiple years, we moved away from that system. The clerk and myself and the president have been looking at other potential meeting and agenda management systems. And we ended up finding that the company, the vendor that provides MuniCode also provides a system called Civic Clerk. which will allow for agenda and meeting management software to be significantly improved, to have all packet materials and agendas provided through the system, you can track resolutions through the system, as well as it, you can even use it during the meetings itself to put up information on the on the screen and directly connect your agenda and documents into your meeting. that's actually going to cost less than half of what the prior software was costing. So really, just implementing this is going to streamline a bunch of different work that the clerk's office does right now, you know, in spreadsheets or on Word documents or in agenda postings on the city website into one software service. And part of what we've looked at also includes the training necessary so that all people involved will have the training they need to get up to speed on the software. So it is a will be a real improvement, I believe, for the clerk's office, although I wouldn't ask the clerk to speak to it, but in our conversations, he's been really excited and thinking that it will really improve the workflow on this meeting and agenda work in his office. And he's nodding yes for those who can't see. And it's less than what we're spending now, and it's already in the budget because it was a software, it's replacing a software that we were using in the past that we haven't used since 2020. So that's my general summary and happy to answer any questions having been in the process.
[Zac Bears]: just two other quick things that I forgot. This is also going to integrate directly with Muni code. So meeting records and documentation will seamlessly move forward instead of having to go through an upload process and all of that burden. And there's the least as far as I know, and we'll see through the implementation process, it may be possible for other boards and commissions to use the software as well. So you'd be able to access other public meeting information and agendas through this as well. But that's We're focusing on the council first, but hopefully if possible, and it's just already built in, then maybe we can make it available to boards and commissions as well.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, potentially, I don't know. we're gonna try to get the software implemented for the council and see what kind of availability is there, but also I think it would be up to them and to any board and commission if they wanna stick with what they're using now or the process that they have now versus using this software or not.
[Zac Bears]: And it is coming out of, is it technically coming out of the clerk's budget or the council budget?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I think as folks know, a few weeks ago, one of the bald eagles at Mystic Lakes died because it was poisoned. And these were the pesticides that killed that bald eagle. And I know a lot of folks were obviously distraught about that specific case, but it's not, you know, this is a statewide issue. That's why there's a statewide bill. It's also a state law regulates this. So it's not like Medford can say, we won't let you use this type of pesticide here. It really has to happen through the state. One person who I communicated with a little bit about this was our animal control officer, Pat Hogan, who was especially distraught at this happening and losing such an amazing animal to something like this. Basically what happened is a rat ate some rodenticide and it The eagle ate the rat and the eagle died. And there are alternatives that are not this kind of anti-coagulant as far as I understand, no expert, but alternatives to this option that are not going to cause such detrimental impacts up the food chain when we're talking about rat control and rodent control. So he was one person I talked to, I said, hey, I'll put a resolution on it. And he said, thanks, because he had put out a call asking people to call their lawmakers about this bill. And there's several other folks from many communities who've had incidents like the one that we had, who are also hoping that this law will change and that this will not be something that our animal control and other folks have to deal with on a regular basis anymore. So that's the intent here. And I ask my colleagues for their support.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And certainly I share the idea that this should have happened sooner. I want to on my own own a piece of the delay. I mean, I think we met last on zoning on the on the scriveners errors, the zoning changes suggestions from the building commissioner. I think that was in December. Um, my hope was that we would have the scope not at the end of March, but maybe the end of January. Um, So, you know, we have made some progress since we did the last zoning I hear what you're saying about the frustration. I also want to say that I do feel like we're on a good path to getting a good scope and RFP for us to look at discuss vote on and get out the door so that we can work on the process. And part of that, I was involved in that process as well. And it's, and you know, I have had, you know, been looking at Draftscope and it's taken me a couple of weeks longer than I thought to send back suggestions. So I may be part of the delay and I want to own a piece of that.
[Zac Bears]: if I may, Madam President, we've had some conversations with Mark Brodsky and him saying, here are the pieces of this that I can do. And here are the pieces where you need additional support. I'm a lawyer. Here's the zoning. Here's the pieces of part, you know, there's a lot of the record and the actual legal language. That's my expertise. He mentioned that he's brought on some other folks. I think Jonathan Silverstein now works at a part of his firm. And he said, but here's the pieces of this. Like, you know, he's not going to run public meetings for us to discuss, you know, potential zoning changes with the public, he's not going to work with the Community Development Board or Zoning Board. I mean, there's pieces of this that he said, like it's it needs to be a partnership. And if I just want to add this, and, you know, when when we brought on Brabowski in 2020, in the end of 2020, I think it was, or I can't quite remember. But in 2020, or 2021, he initially submitted as part of a group We got a response to an RFP where he was part of a group working, I think, with a land use consultant and a planning consultant and him as part of a three-pronged package. And then we looked at the RFP and said, hey, we want to split this out. And we understand you submitted as part of a group, but we want to split it out and do this RECOD part first, which we can just do as a legal contract just with you. And then the phase two is going to be this larger question of where you have a planner and you have land use experts who are willing to help with the public process as well so I understand the frustration, I wish it had happened sooner.
[Zac Bears]: Exactly.
[Zac Bears]: That's definitely a piece of it. I just wanted to own my piece of it.
[Zac Bears]: We're trying to make it work, but I hear that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. As we all know, there's been lots of conversations and discussion about a capital improvement plan. I think we've heard at least in this council session recently, I think from members of the city staff that They're working on a capital improvement plan update. I'd like to see it. And I think that we should be part of the process and I'm hoping we can see that sooner rather than later. So that's my motion.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, it flows right from the last conversation. Really what I intend with this proposal is that we've seen how the process is broken. We've seen this question of feeling respected, feeling included within the process. And we've seen over the past couple of years what it's taken for us to force the conversations that we need to have. I don't think any of us were know, just barely four of us were comfortable with what happened in the last budget meeting last June, right? And I respect my colleagues who didn't want to go down that path, because that's not how government should operate, right? It should never have gotten to that point. It should never have been 1.30 in the morning. It should never have been we have to say this is gonna be a cut or we won't approve or put us into a period of uncertainty because we didn't have the information that we needed, residents didn't have the information that we needed, and we didn't have the good faith collaborative process that quite frankly, the city deserves. And this is really calling the question, I mean, my thoughts here are, you know, I have thoughts I want to meet in committee of the whole to really outline what this would look like. But there's these are the big three things for me that really I think will hit on a lot of the complaints and frustrations that we have voiced right here in this meeting and that we've voiced pretty much every meeting because I think we all share them. a budget process where the council actually has real authority. Right now, we are the final vote, quote unquote, but all we can do is approve, reject or cut. We can't adjust, we can't amend, we can't say, you know, we really think that this priority is essential and it needs to be funded. And instead we were in the situation we were in where it was cutting some sort of deal. That's not how it should be. We should be able to say, hey, we need 50,000 for zoning. We're amending the budget to put 50,000 for zoning. We need legal counsel. Well, maybe we'll put that in the budget directly, you know, and quite frankly, other cities have this, other cities have implemented it recently. you know, it's not like we're, you know, the city council's going and moving around 10 2030% of the budget, it's still on the margins, it's still, you know, a few hundred thousand dollars and like less than 5%, or even less than 1% of a budget. But those priorities and really being heard. If we want to, if we want to have that respect, we need that power. And that, you know, means going through the discussion of what that what that would look like. The two other things that I put in here are two other things directly related to that one is this question about boards and commissions. As we all know, we only approve a certain small number of boards and commissions. We've been trying to put into the ordinances more recently, adding, you know, confirmation. But I really think that moving towards a real collaborative process where There really is a public process for who gets appointed to what boards and commissions and this council is consulted is another valuable change in power that needs to happen. And finally, this third question around the direct hiring of staff to support the city council. And to me, that could mean a lot of things. I think having the authority to make that decision on our own is important, but specifically I'm thinking legal counsel, you know, sometimes I don't like to say it, but sometimes I, you know, Adam Knight was right. And here we are in... It's in the record.
[Zac Bears]: But seriously, I'm as frustrated, I think, as you are, that we're sitting here on March 21st of this year, after June 28th of last year, and there's no one working in the city solicitor's office. Now, there's a million potential explanations for why that is, but I'd like to give us, maybe people would wanna work for us. maybe that's a difference of opinion. And we don't know that, maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like to at least try it. A lot of other communities have multiple clerks working for councils, have a separate legal council working for city councils. These are not crazy ideas, they are just things that we would need to change. The process for us doing that, again, I think we should really look at it and have this committee of the whole, that's why I'm proposing this, but the process for that, and I think focusing on a small number of things makes the most sense here, is we have the authority under state law to put forward discrete amendments to the city charter. Not a full charter review, not addressing representation or ward representation or who serves on the council, but specific targeted amendments to the charter to make sure that the balance of power is really fair in this community and that this council has the teeth to demand respect. and to demand a part in the process because it's in the charter and not just because, you know, we have one vote that we can hold up or something else. I don't disagree that there are other strategies that we need to do in the interim, but to me, how this would look is let's all sit down. If we can all agree, or at least most of us, you know, five, six or seven of us can agree on some language, we can suggest that. We can recommend it to be put forward to the voters to decide if they think that this balance of power would work. That can go forward if the mayor says it goes forward she can be a part of that I mean obviously she can block it if she wants but if, again, all seven of us agree on that. I'd like the voters to make that choice. I'd like the people to make that choice. And the other fallback position, I have thought this out a little bit. We as a council have unilateral authority to put non-binding ballot questions on the ballot. So if the mayor chooses that she doesn't want to put forward these amendments to the voters, if we agree on something that we would all like to put forward to the voters, we could put it on as a non-binding question in November, see what the people think, and then go back to the mayor after that and say, hey, 70% of the city thinks this is a good idea. You really want to stand in the way? in any case, or to whomever is the mayor in January. But I just think these are common sense ways where not just today, not just last year, this year, next year, but for a long time, we can make sure that the Medford City Council, while still maintaining the form of government we have, has those tools that we don't have right now under the charter to do our job and do what residents want us to do. So that's my thought here. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, I just want to I want to speak to what all my colleagues have a specific accounts to Scarpelli's points earlier I mean, you know, I do think we all share the frustration we may all express it differently and that's that is what it is but but I do think we share it. And I think to Councilor Caraviello's point. shouldn't have to put this in the charter. To me it's it's it's bad politics to not just do this. Right. I mean it hasn't worked out that way, apparently, but you know, keep some money aside, so that council priorities can be considered in the budget process, give the council some time to consider the process give enough time to have a good process, say to the council are there staff and supports that you need that will provide and you don't have to leverage to get it. Give the council you know, time and consideration and an actual packet of information when you're appointing someone to a board and commission so we can review it and approve it. I mean, it's not just Somerville, it's like every other city in the Commonwealth that does this this way. And I think, again, just on a pure politics, it's like, while you're not doing it, you're just taking an L for no reason. And that I don't get at all. So, you know, if suddenly there's a policy to just start doing all of this without changing the charter, I'm all for it. That's a lot easier. It's a lot less time that I'm going to go around all fall hopefully saying to everyone I talked to is voting, hey, this is a reasonable thing that this council needs to be a fair partner in government, please vote for it because it's just like basic governance and due diligence for a community. You know, what I rather spend my time actually doing the process and doing the thing. Absolutely. But again, I think really it would comes down to the only reason to not do this as you maintain power to control power to withhold power to stall power to hide, and that's where Councilors got placed point comes in, you know, when we don't have the information that we want. And I can hear you that an answer to you feels like we just shouldn't do these things because we're giving them what they want and we're not getting what we want. And I hear that, you know, on principle, I probably agree with that. It's just, then I go and I hear, well, we're gonna lose this person and this person and this person, or, you know, I hear directly from Tim or Chief Friedman, like, these are essential needs that we have now. It's gonna take three years to get a fire truck, you know, from the producer. And it's like, so can we hold off and wait on that? I don't wanna be the person saying no. I also don't wanna be the person put in the position of feeling like I should say no, because I don't know if it's a good idea. And that is what this is about. not we should never be in that position. It should never be people are coming here and saying, please let me do my job. Because there's that lack of mistrust and partnership and collaboration. That's just not the way to run a thing. And again, I just think it's not good practice in general. Would I rather not do this? Honestly, probably Yeah, but you know, There's a charter review process going on. Maybe there's a new charter by 2026. I don't want to wait three and a half years to see if we can do that. If we can put common sense stuff that I know that, again, the different political people in this room disagree on a lot, but we kind of agree on this. People I talk to in the community say, hey, that sounds like a reasonable good idea. I think if you put these three simple ideas in front of voters, they're gonna say, yeah, that's probably a good way to run a city. And that's really all this is about. So if there's another alternative that can come down the pike and we can go down that route and have this collaboration without having to go through a process like this, great. But I don't see it either. That's, you know, if I had a son to give to the city, that would be. But that's really it. I appreciate the discussion. Thanks everybody.
[Zac Bears]: I believe one of them was a question from the President, if you don't mind me saying it, about why a press release went out about stuff urging us to vote on something before we'd even gotten an email saying that free cash was certified. We communicate. Things have been slightly better in the past few months, and I appreciate that. We're getting things done. And I understand your frustration with me putting this forward in the presentation, but there's a difference between having a little bit better communication and having real collaboration and the intentionality. I'm glad we're getting more stuff done. I'm really glad, but that doesn't change this. We had the presentation from Bob that we were promised November 15th. in February. We got the legal stuff today, but it's not really all the legal stuff. It's a part of the legal stuff and some of it was missing. And I understand mistakes happen. And I understand we're not all gonna be perfect. And I'm sorry that I cut into this conversation, but if you're gonna talk about the text messages that I sent trying to get that information that we have so we can have a meeting where we don't have a blow up every time, That's all I'm trying to do. If we could call it bad government, call it bad politics, it's just like, how many unforced L's are we gonna take, man? Like, I can't take it. There's just things that are mistakes that don't need to happen that happen, and I'm not trying to blame anybody, but at a certain point, It's just really frustrating and I'm sure you're really frustrated with things that we do that some of us do that all of us do that we as a body do. That's okay. We're not always going to always agree, but the way that the balance of power is set up right now. It's just not right. It's just not fair, and it's just going to lead us back to these situations where Maybe communication's a little bit better. Maybe instead of 20% of what we asked for, we get 60% of what I asked for. So maybe the problem's only 40% bad instead of 80% bad. It's just not how I want to operate. And I'm sorry that it came across as accusatory. And I never said no communication. I said collaborative, transparent. I said balancing power better. I said opening up more democratic processes so that like this council has a real balance of power with the mayoral administration across the hall. You know, the Charter Review Committee knows, everybody knows we have the strongest plan A charter. Basically in the state, the mayor is incredibly powerful. And all I'm saying is that there's negative externalities and effects from that. I would never, if I was sitting across that hall and this was the discussion, would I want to give it away? No, because I have a lot of control, and I can control the timeline I control when something comes out and I can control, you know, the situation I can try to insulate myself from from from problems and I understand the appeal of that. It's just not what I think is best for the city at this point. I really, again I understand the frustration I appreciate you being here I appreciate this, having this dialogue. I'm going to stop talking now I want to hear your response to everything that I just said, not going to cut you off and I don't know that I've maybe done it once or twice in the past two years and I'm, you know, I'm trying to be someone who doesn't do that but, you know, it's a fundamental question and, you know, I don't always have six people on behind this rail agreeing with me but for the past year and a half, I pretty much we all agree on these basic things and, you know, you can be the most progressive person in the city, you might be the most conservative person in the city or very conservative person in the city this appeals to them. And I hope that we can move forward with maybe changing the balance of power to have a different kind of discussion and collaborative relationship going forward. It doesn't mean I'm, you know, trying to diss the communication that we have been having, although I understand that it's a difficult conversation that may come off that way. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I get in my car and I drive- Let's not have this argument again. I mean, honestly, we're having a- Please, hang on.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. I just wanted to say that I do appreciate what you said about reaching out and sitting down and that you want to have conversations. I appreciate that. Again, I think as one Councilor, I have had some opportunities to do that. However, I just want to also say on the topic at hand, There's a difference between a comprehensive and total charter review, whether by home rule petition or special act or, you know, mass general law provisions and discrete charter amendments. A full review of charter opens up everything in the charter. It's not just the question of this specific question of balance of powers between the mayor and the council. We may not all agree that we should go to word representation, Councilor Knight I know for one has very strong thoughts that he kind of likes to play in a form of government that we have right now. I don't want to speak for you Councilor Knight. I do think there's general consensus on a specific and discrete thing probably something that the mayor would have supported sitting here around balance of power. And that's something that be given the authority and the laws that, while a full and comprehensive charter review, certainly won't be effect until January 2026, at best, could be in effect January 2024 around balance of power and looking at that and I think that sooner than later, in my opinion, is better on that. So I appreciate you bringing up the full charter review process. You know that I've voted for it multiple times and strongly support going through a full charter review. I've actually, you know, I'm sure that members of the charter review committee that the mayor has appointed the ad hoc charter review group probably are saying, what's he talking about doing something before we've had a chance to look at everything? I'm happy to talk to any members of that committee. I'm certainly not trying to step on their toes or trying to take out the idea of doing a comprehensive charter review at some point. This is just something that this group, which again, Councilor Knight made the very strong point, thousands and thousands of people elected us. If we can all agree to do something, mass general law says that's good enough to, it's certainly good enough to put on as a non-binding resolution and with the support of the mayor, it's certainly enough to put on the ballot for the voters to make a choice. And I think that's where we should go from here. And I'll leave it at that. Thank you for bring that up, but I just wanted to clarify that that was my meeting there.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to waive the reading. since it's already been read and in favor of a summary from the commission.
[Zac Bears]: I was just going to say, I, for one, would much rather bond this than spend free cash. Bonding spreads the cost out of our lucidum in a period of time. It's going towards a capital expense. We've done bond issues for roads and sidewalks stuff in the past specifically for that reason. I'll leave it at that. I mean, you know, today we're certified 25 million free cash. Great. We're all very happy about that. There's like nine, seven, eight, 9 million of that going out the door requested to out the door tonight. I mean, so like that, I'm not saying it's all going to go. Cause I, I don't know.
[Zac Bears]: I'd be happy with that.
[Zac Bears]: Hey, we haven't gotten the paper yet, but I don't disagree with that at all.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, yeah, no, I know.
[Zac Bears]: I don't disagree with you. I would rather bond both. I'll leave it at that.
[Zac Bears]: The timeline is not good. I'm right there with you, Madam President. Bob, just my other question is just when does it leave free cash? So if we approve it as free cash right now, does that mean that it's sitting there for 400, 500, 600, 800 days until we're actually paying these people and that's what gives us some time to potentially adjust the source or the method in which we're paying for it?
[Zac Bears]: And just one really quick follow-up. So the 25 million figure that we got certified today, that is as of June 30th, 2022. Is that correct? Yes. So there's even whatever we've accrued this year that's in free cash, but we don't have the certification and won't have it until a year from now when there's a significant lag time.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to revert.
[Zac Bears]: I would just say, you know, these are folks I'm going to race this January 1 2020. the appropriation is $80,000 for the rest of this fiscal year. I understand and respect Councilor Scarapelli's position, but also, you know, we have an opportunity to do this for some employees. I wish we had in front of us contracts to do this for all employees, and I don't want to step away from that position in any sort of way. But again, similarly to prior discussions. We have people who are already working here who've gone without for a very long time. I hear that across all fronts. I don't want us to lose people from city government because they can go somewhere else and get a raise. We've faced that in a bunch of different places. And again, my preference would be to be able to say that for everyone. I'd like there to be five papers on here with five contracts. That's what I want. It's been made clear many times and made clear again tonight. The administration says personnel issues, we're not going to discuss it here. So, you know, I'm not involved in those negotiations, but I can tell you what my position is, is that I think that there should be a fair agreement reached as quickly as possible. And I think the fact that contracts have been out so long and non-union employees have gone without a raise so long are both really major problems. We can correct one of those problems tonight. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: We can come back to this meeting just we'll give you time to pull that information.
[Zac Bears]: In my opinion, so I'd refer it to legal counsel. No. Well, fine, but I'll move to approve but exclude the mayor and the city council.
[Zac Bears]: Just sorry if you already have said this, my understanding is there's a grant for the other 45% of the sweeper?
[Zac Bears]: Is there a time contingency on the grant? Like how if we, you know, do we lose the grant if we don't approve the other half by a certain period of time or?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no, well heard. And since you, you know, this is something we had a great conversation with director Dickinson. three and a half hours ago, talking about the budget process. And when you mentioned this is gonna be a regular thing, I think, you know, again, I'm not speaking, I hear you on the need here, I hear this grant, the grant funds could be contingent on the approval of the other half, like, I don't have a problem with anything here. I share Councilor Scarborough's general concerns about the overall issue. But if we could figure out a way to build that into the regular budget process, This is all I'm saying is it's just a, it's an issue of perception. We say use some free cash. We're going to use free cash for these things. We know they're going to be regular things that we need to do every year, but we go to free cash and some years, you know, right. The last four years, like free cash, hasn't been an option in a lot of cases. So we delay and we defer on the central capital purchases. And then you end up with an even worse fleet and you guys spending even more time trying to fix old stuff. I'm just saying in general, like, you know, if you're having the discussions that we're having around the budget, if we can build in things that we think are going to be annual recurring costs into the budget process, rather than having to wait on free cash certification to then come before us and use free cash for discrete things like this. I just think it goes a long way for us in the long run.
[Zac Bears]: No, well heard. And again, I'm just, it's a general comment. Absolutely. If we had the capital plan updated every year attached to the city budget. It just changes the conversation. Yep. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: I think my comment on timing may have seemed esoteric, but it's very direct to this point. Right. So we know free cash got certified today. I'm hearing you say there's trucks available. We can get them in weeks. If we delay a couple of months, we're not going to get trucks for 18 months. That's a bad situation to be in. I don't want to do that to you guys. Right. So I'm going to vote for the damn thing. But like if we had had a conversation about capital expenses over a period of time and said, hey, we have a bunch of urgent needs. We're doing the procurement and acquisition. We're not going to have free cash certified till the end of March. But here's all the things that we'd known two months ago. then Rick's not sitting here saying it's the last minute getting shoved down our throats when that is what it is. And we're in that situation. And basically, we have to be in that situation. And, you know, again, I come when I make my determination on this, I'm like, I don't want to screw over the fleet people, right? When I don't want to screw over the fire department, I don't want to screw over anybody here. But I'm just, you know, I'm like, this close to being where he's at, on all of it, where it's like, It's just about the collaborative and communication process and making sure that information is presented in a way where you guys don't have to come up here and say, hey, we know it's the last minute. We only have a certain amount of time to acquire these products. It's again, I'm going to vote. Yeah. And I can hear the tension in your voice because you're hearing, oh, my God, it's going to get delayed and then we're going to be in real trouble. And that shouldn't be on you guys to have to come here and justify that. So. I'm going to vote for it, but that's the frustration is like if we had a real process in place where information was coming in in a timely manner and we were getting what we need, then we would be having these conversations weeks or months in advance instead of hours or days in advance and then there wouldn't be the frustration that I'm hearing from my colleagues. So thank you for your presentation.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. It's a lot safer in general. If there's an accident 20 years newer than the last one.
[Zac Bears]: And you don't have to, I appreciate the timeline stuff, because that's helpful for us to know, because, you know, we hear that from you guys on your end who are on the ground acquiring, you know, looking at the conditions of what we have now acquiring the new stuff, that's all helpful.
[Zac Bears]: It's just it's just the, you know, again, I appreciate you giving us the pitch on these good things and hearing all the details and information. It's just really like, I don't think the issue is that these are not necessary or they don't need to be data now or the timeline is here. It's just like, Mike probably knew two months ago, the timeline, right? Like, and probably communicated that to the administration, but it never got communicated to us. And there can be exceptions where you get a call from a dealership and we want to take advantage of it. I have no problem with that. I'm glad that timeliness is happening, but.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, yeah. There's no dispute on that.
[Zac Bears]: No, you didn't say this sorry. Oh, very quickly. It's just you said, I don't think this is the one to do this on. Right. And I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I just think that really captures the full scope of the whole thing. It shouldn't be that we're picking and choosing which one we're going to hold and which one we're not because we have a disagreement around knowing the information in a timely manner. And that's the issue. And you didn't say that I said that, but it really just captured the crux of the whole thing for me. You guys come up here and they're like, which one is it going to be tonight? And that's not the position you should be in, and it's not the position we want to be in. So I'll just leave it at that. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for the explanation, Director Dickinson. I appreciate the additional context. Personally, I think a stabilization fund is a great idea. I'm just a little wary of the process. I think for me, you know, we had our issues in the last budget where we were in a structural deficit we had many millions of dollars where we were covering it with our revenue replacement. We've had a discussion about the revenue side of the budget but we have not had a presentation regarding at anything as far as I've seen as us to the expense side of the budget. So I you know we don't know yet what the potential either structural deficit being covered by ARPA might be this year or if there, you know, is any need to use free cash to cover any, any holes in the budget. Hopefully neither of those things are true considering the very strong seeming presentation by director Dickinson about revenue but you know, only seen one side of the budget at best we haven't seen the expense side yet. It sounded to me, Bob and please correct me if I'm wrong, that. We have we can use since free cash is certified, we can use that through June 30. And given that, and again, if I'm wrong, please let me know, I would rather kind of have this discussion as part of the holistic discussion we're going to be having around the fiscal 24 budget. And we can kind of decide, or have a little bit more understanding of we have this amount of free cash, these are our revenue and expense expectations. We do or do not expect to have to use free cash. I just don't want to see us put $5 million into this account today when maybe it should better be sitting as free cash for a little while. Again, I don't know. But I'd like to have that conversation as part of the budget. Just something else I know is that there is a specific part of state law in Chapter 59, Section 21C, Subsection G, that allows cities to create specific dedicated revenue to fund stabilization funds with the approval of the voters. and I'd just like to have that be part of the discussion as well. So I personally would like to move this to a committee of the whole, where we can either discuss this on its own or discuss it as part of the fiscal 24 budget and just get that paper done by, you know, it sounds like we don't have to get it done by June 28th or June 30th. So that would be my motion.
[Zac Bears]: Just on this question, I mean, so if it's stable, if we did this next week, instead of this week, is it going to delay you getting the RFP out?
[Zac Bears]: I just have one question that I'm confused about here, and Tim maybe could answer it. Sorry, Tim, to call you away from that. And my vote's basically gonna hinge on the answer to this question. If we vote for this now, Yes, then you don't have to come back to us when you've selected a contract to approve that contract. That that would be correct. We would be able. That's okay. So like, I'm fine authorizing that this that we are cool with a 10 year contract. Yeah, I'm not fine authorizing that before the bidding process. I understand it might put the city in a better position. But that was just a clarification piece that I wanted. This basically would just mean we don't get you don't come back to us again after this, right?
[Zac Bears]: And this is where, and again, I really don't wanna belabor this and I'm hoping we can wrap this up soon, but for me, like when we were just, when the process was described to us, I think this is where there's maybe a little bit of a switch up. I hear you, you're saying you've come back at this point, you've had a further conversation, you think the quality of bids will be higher if the bidders know that they're gonna get a 10-year contract. Yes. Now, I for one will 100% vote for a 10-year contract. That makes a lot of sense, I'm totally in favor of that. just think where there's a switch is, is a little bit here and I'm hearing you come come with it is an adjustment to the process that we had discussed before, right? Sure, yes. And I want to entertain that openly. This to me, and I'm happy to hear a rebuttal. This to me says if we vote yes on this, then we are authorizing whatever 10 year contract the mayor decides is best. versus if we went with the process that we had talked about previously, it would be, we would be voting to authorize a 10-year contract where we have the specifics after the bidding process. And that just to me is a real difference substantively. I mean, if you think, if I heard from you and Alicia that the quality of the bids will be so much lower if we don't approve it now versus approve it later, like I'm willing to entertain that discussion, but it just really is a change from we will approve this 10-year contract to we will approve whatever 10-year contract gets come up with through the process. And that just seems, it's a different question to me. And so that's just, you know, and I think part of it is like, you know, Again, we've had a lot of discussions about trust and communication tonight, right? It's like, I trust you and Alicia are doing a really good job on this RFP process, but you and Alicia don't make the final decision on the contract. So, you know, and then there's a different level of trust there right now. Although, you know, in any case, I won't get back into that discussion, but that's just a difference to me. And I didn't really fully understand, like, I would be happy to vote tonight to say, I 100% support the city entering into a 10 year contract. But I don't want to vote to say you don't have to come back to us once you've negotiated a contract and then get us to approve it and it sounds like this is both of those things. And it doesn't can't really be split up. So that's just where I'm coming from.
[Zac Bears]: Would you be open to amending that to make it as a motion to table for one week to request the opinion from the law department and also to give the administration and the DPW director and the PDS director a chance to propose potentially an alternative as long as there's... Why don't we just table it and they can do whatever the hell they want.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, okay, fine.
[Zac Bears]: I'm sorry, is that a motion to table?
[Zac Bears]: No, I know, yeah. I just wanna make sure I know what we're doing.
[Zac Bears]: It's a table until we get the legal opinion. sure. No, I voted no. Everyone else voted yes. It passes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm fine. I'm just saying no. You can record it however you want.
[Zac Bears]: I'd just like to motion. We have a bunch of stuff that's like 15 months old that's never going anywhere. If we could receive and place on file papers 221-631, 21-631, there's two of them. 22-023, 22-400, 22-610, and 22-611. Motion to receive and place on file.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, can we take papers? 20-024, 23-044, 23-057, and 23-058, please. Okay, so we're still under suspension. I don't think we have to vote on that, correct, Mr. Clerk? All right, so 20-024.
[Zac Bears]: President, motion to waive the reading.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Madam President. Just a quick summary this is we've discussed this many times now over the past three years and committee and subcommittee This is a proposal to create an affordable housing trust for the city of Medford. This would create a trust of the provisions of state law where City funds private funds etc could be pulled for the benefit of creating more affordable housing in the community. This has been reported out of committee, just the latest updates. Motion when this is reported on a committee in November was to request comments from Greater Boston Building Trades. They have submitted a letter of comment through the Greater Boston Labor Council, which was included in our packets last week. I also have distributed a short, there's two minor technical amendments that need to be made here. I just caught a couple of typos when I was reading through the, well, caught a couple of typos and a couple of typos were brought to my attention looking through the ordinance on the agenda. I'm happy to present them, but there's one in section 49-52, which the Number four should be replaced with the remaining members. It says the board shall be composed of seven members, but then it says one shall be the mayor. One may be a member of the Community Preservation Committee. And then it says four, that would only add up to six or maybe even five if the may of the Community Preservation Committee members considered. So I just proposed a technical amendment to strike the number four and replace it with the words, the remaining members. And then in section 49-54, subsection 11, just clarifying language here. that we had put into the ordinance, just to explain that borrowed by the trust shall pledge any borrowing that pledges more than 70% of the cash assets of the trust for Park City Council approvals. It was just a little bit confusing there. And I talked that over with planning development and sustainability. So I would move to amend the ordinance to reflect those two technical amendments, which all Councilors should have and the clerk should have. And I would also move to attach the letter of comment received from the Greater Boston Labor Council and require the trustees to incorporate the language provided by the Greater Boston Labor Council into the rules and regulations of the Affordable Housing Trust. And so that would be the language that we received back regarding project labor agreements.
[Zac Bears]: It clearly reads any borrowing by the trust that pledges, any borrowing by the trust pledging more than 75, 70% of the assets of the trust requires city council approval. The change would be any borrowing by the trust that pledges more than 70% of the cash assets of the trust requires city council approval.
[Zac Bears]: And I would propose those amendments and to approve the ordinance for first reading.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanna second what Councilor Knight said and thanks to former Councilor Falco for advancing this. When it was first, On the agenda and I saw my name next to I said that doesn't seem right I don't think I proposed this in January 2020 but that's because Councilor talk with it. So, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, that's a complicated question. The housing trust can do a lot of things. If the housing trust funds a private project on private land, then that project would pay property taxes. The fund was, you know, there could be a complicated arrangement where perhaps the city is leasing public land to a private developer I believe that would also constitute paying property taxes. If the city were to say have a piece of land that's currently public land that currently doesn't pay property taxes, because the city would just be paying taxes to itself, and that were to be conveyed to the Affordable Housing Trust, it wouldn't start paying property taxes until it was conveyed to sold or something like that. But I don't know if that answers your question. It's not so simple as a yes or no answer, but if funding for this goes to private projects, then those would pay property taxes, absolutely.
[Zac Bears]: BMX guy, maybe I like analogies and things like that.
[Zac Bears]: Just two questions. Well, one comment, one question. One, I was talking to Steve today, the other day, and he seemed pretty excited about some of the new equipment. So that was a good sign. Second piece, just to kind of contextualize this, and just let me know if I'm getting it wrong, the assessment that we did, what, two fiscal years ago now, almost three fiscal years ago now, the sidewalk scope alone was 25, 30 million, right, to get to a state of good repair, maybe even more than that. Yeah, it's a year in the ballpark. Okay, so I just wanted to put that out there that, you know, 1.5 million or, you know, to 1.5 million may sound like a lot but it's 10% of what our need is. Right.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, exactly. And kind of just want to again confirm here is when you're talking about, you know, that reflects the revenue issue and the funding issue. You know, we need more people we need more equipment we need to really get at it. But The strategy you're talking about just to inform that a little bit more that's also coming partially from the sidewalk assessment of the street assessment as well as some additional research that you've done.
[Zac Bears]: And I don't want to reiterate something you already said but I just want to make sure I'm understanding it right. Basically what you're trying to do is pivot resources so that smaller things that we can address in-house, we have the tools and the capacity to do that. And then for the bigger projects, we're focusing on the areas that are most trafficked, where the sidewalks are most used in the city.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. So I think that really shows that To me, something we always talk about is making sure that given the fact that we have limited resources and a lot of need, we're best using the resources that we currently have. And it seems to me that that's what your departments are really doing with this situation and what you're asking us for. Obviously, we have a lot more that needs to be done, but it does seem to be that. you are trying to acquire the equipment and, you know, put forward the contracts where we can address issues as they happen and address the areas of the city that need help the most. So that's a comment. You don't have to respond to that. Thank you, Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, I mean, to the point around delaying this, you know, I'd be comfortable tabling for our one meeting and requesting an opinion from the Attorney General. I think the other thing we just need to hear, and again, a lot of this is a communication question, right? On the finances, we had what I thought was a good conversation last week with the finance director on the revenue side of finance. I think the question obviously is going to be on the expense side of finance. And there's, you know, communication that needs to happen there where, you know, we need, they just need to get us information that we need. But in any case, I think the communication issue here is to Councilor Knight's point, we have not heard the administration say that KP Law is functioning as the acting city solicitor. Now, in all senses of all operations of the city, they are obviously serving as the acting city solicitor. I just think we need to get them, somebody from the administration needs to come here and say that. So personally, I would feel comfortable tabling this to our next meeting on March 14th. If we want to send it to the Attorney General's office for legal review, that's fine with me. I mean, Bond Council reviewed this. I believe Bond Council, Jay Gonzalez reviewed this, you know, and that's the Bond Council we've always used. KP Law obviously wrote this report. If they're functioning as the acting city solicitor, I think we should just need to know that. I hear everyone on the legal question. Quite frankly, we held the administration to account to fund an assistant city solicitor and the position still is unfilled. Now, we can debate why the position's unfilled, sure. But in my view, we won that fight. We said we want in-house legal counsel and the budget has in-house legal counsel. The question is just bringing the people on in those positions. So I just, I hear what everyone's saying. If the administration would just say whether or not KP Law is serving as the acting city solicitor, I think that would be helpful communication for us to have. and maybe it would change our view and potentially a little bit about who they work for and who they don't work for, because I believe if they are serving as acting city solicitor, they would be working for us too. But in any case, I'm happy to support a tabling for one meeting. And I would request either request to amend council rights motion or propose a separate motion that we request that the mayor and city administration tell the council whether or not KP law is currently serving as the acting city solicitor for the city of Medford. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I think we should amend the charter so the council appoints a city solicitor, but that's just my thoughts.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, just because I think we have kind of three prongs of things here now on the table and we should move forward as best we can. One is Councilor Knight saying that he wants the Attorney General's office to review whether this is acceptable relative to our city ordinances. The second is something that I brought up, which is if the mayor could state whether or not in her view, KP Law is functioning as the acting city solicitor for the city of Medford. And the third thing Councilor Collins brought up is an update on the hiring process for the city solicitor, the assistant city solicitor.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to, is that right?
[Zac Bears]: That's what I was going to address. Yes. I'm just, I'm trying to not, not trying to fill in for you at all. Madam president, just, I was just looking up very quickly. There's a municipal law bureau at the attorney general's office. relative to those ideas, if everyone who proposed those three different ideas would be comfortable, can we move to table this for one meeting till March 14th, request that the city clerk call the Municipal Law Bureau at the Attorney General's office tomorrow or this week and request that review that Councilor Knight asked for, or ask what the process would be for that. and then also ask that the administration get back to us in 10 days around my question and Councilor Collins' question. And then in two weeks, we will have some sort of response back from the Attorney General. It may not be a full response. It may say, this is the process you need to go through to get us to do this, or we don't do this, or whatever else it may be. But I just wanted to put some timelines and a shock box on the whole thing, because I agree we need the right answer, but I also agree that we should try to move as fast as we can. Does that make sense to everybody, the three folks who proposed motions?
[Zac Bears]: Any members of the Council wish to speak, I'm happy to hear from them first.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I respect my colleagues positions on this. I think There's been a number of issues. I think that maybe the chain of events and the opinions are getting a little bit conflated, but I, again, I respect my fellow councilors positions. To me, the way that this is presented tonight, it's very clear that a new position in the city does not exist until it is approved in the cap. This is presented as a new position to be added to the cap, which did not exist prior to any action that we take on this. We did receive legal advice from KP Law, a memorandum from KP Law around these issues, clearly delineating the requirements of Chapter 44, Section 33A. And when it comes to creating a new position, that requires four votes. If it's something else, there's other requirements. But this is, I think, to me, very similar to the senior planner position that was created by this council and amended to the CAF in late last year. And I also think, and I'm just gonna say what I said at that meeting, The work that we do here is a balancing of interests and a balancing of what's best for the city. I personally feel confident on this paper and the legal justification behind it. And I also feel that. this person that the creation of a traffic and transportation director, and making sure that a person who fills that role has the multiple years of experience with the city that the person who would, you know, likely be taking the role has is essential, and we know that there are not enough experts to fill too many open jobs. There are other communities, there are state agencies that are looking for people with the expertise of this position and that's why I personally am going to support this tonight because I want to make sure that this city that we as a city council are making sure that the city has the staff and tools that the city needs to be successful. And that's my reasoning. So thank you, Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I'd move to approve this paper for first reading.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and the other thing I would just say is I do believe the traffic and transportation director and the position was included in the new unit of management positions that was organized by level 25. So I don't believe there'll be a loss of the union position.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, I'm in the affirmative to in the negative the emotion passes, Madam President motion to take 23 to 059 23-060 and 23-061 until our March 14 regular meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Is this something you did, right? I just want Councilor Scavana to get credit for it.
[Zac Bears]: I found them in order, but I was just going to move to approve the records and all the reports of committees in one vote.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I know you're on your way out the door, Commissioner McGibbert, but have you heard about this? Do you know anything about this? And or Councilor Knight, could you further say who's doing the clearcutting?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilor Collins for sponsoring this. I believe, I can't remember which one of us did it last time, but it was me. You know, I think you made really great points. Something that we did two years ago is we were able to look at assessor data at the City of Medford. And if Tufts, just Tufts for example, was taxed at the same rate as was taxed at all for property taxes. They would pay $8 million a year in property taxes. Now, this law would only require up to 25% of what they would nominally pay, so it would be about $2 million a year. But I just want to say since we've had the discussions here tonight. That's $2 million for sidewalk crew to support our firefighters to support all the emergency calls that go out to tops to support street and sidewalk infrastructure repairs in their area to support affordable housing in the area around the top neighborhood, and I'm just putting that out there to say. I can understand why a nonprofit education or healthcare institution maybe shouldn't be treated the same as a for profit business, but I don't think the answer is that they should be treated, it should be 100% for one and 0% for the other. And I also want to put out there to this isn't just about tops. This is about all of the large nonprofit institutions, and whether or not they play pay pilot payments to the city tops for example while this legislation would allow basically up to $2 million. If they paid normal private tax to be $8 million tops right now pays $450,000 to the city. But other pilot agreements such as right across the street from this building, Harvard Vanguard used to pay a trace health whatever it is now. They used to pay a pilot agreement and they pulled out of their power agreement unilaterally without any city engagement they no longer provide any. pilot payment to the city. Something I'm exploring actually is that Atrius Health was just bought up and is now a for-profit institution, so maybe they'll have to start paying. But my point is to say that right now, the way that the current state law reads, it's up to the discretion of the institution. And that means that even if you have an agreement, the institution could pull out at any time and leave the city holding the bag. And we're already holding the bag for all the services and needs in the areas around these large institutions that they're not paying their fair share for. So I really hope that the State House can do something to create a fair system where we're still understanding that these are nonprofit health and education institutions that should have some benefit, but that benefit shouldn't be all or nothing the way it is now. And furthermore, just to drive home the point, this is for large property owners, the threshold, your property has to be worth, I believe, over $15 million to even be qualified under this suggested amendment. So thank you, Councilor Collins, Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you to my fellow councilors, Councilor Caraviello. And I just wanted to also shout out Director of Prevention and Outreach, Penny Funiol, and also Alicia Lundgren, our social worker, who I believe has a presentation around this that's on the city website that President Burrell referenced, so thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's it. This is just us putting the fee of five cents per five for each square foot, about 5,000 square feet as a fee for plan development district applications into the code of ordinance. So I would move to approve for first reading.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I would just add to Councilor Tseng's point. I think he already made it, but I'm just kind of reiterating it. When we have plans and we have hopes and approaches, I think the place where the city falls down after that is milestones and goals and checking in. And I think this is a request for that on the social justice roadmap that's much needed. So thank you, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, this was a meeting of the subcommittee on ordinances and rules to discuss a budget needs assessment ordinance. We also discussed potential items for improving the budget process, the budget schedule, and what we can do by ordinance and what will require charter change. And it's an initial discussion and brainstorm, and there'll be further meetings to come when I move approval. Second.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to suspend the rules. If we can, we can table 20-025.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to suspend the rules to take paper 23-043.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to see if Engineer Wirtala had any kind of short summary of what this is and what the Stormwater Board has been doing.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk. Does this require first reading? It's not in order. Oh, I guess it is in order. Sorry, my apologies.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I mean, I think what we're hearing is that we all agree that the public utility should be held to a higher standard, but that the state law says that they don't have to be, and we don't control that. So, you know.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Madam President. As folks know, We've had a fiscal 23 budget last year. The process was less than ideal to be kind to the process, and there have been ongoing issues with us getting the information that we need. Since then, it's also come to my attention from members of various boards and commissions in the city that they don't feel that they have the information that they need around their budgets. and that they have some concerns around what has happened to funding that they had and grant funding that has come in and things of that nature. I won't get more specific on that right now, but suffice it to say that boards and commissions have serious concerns about the budget. So these recommendations are to request that the city administration adjust their procedures and processes around the budget and finance and financial information to better inform boards and commissions of the status of their finances and in general to better inform the council and residents about the city budget, where we stand mid-year and getting that process going earlier and making sure everyone has the information they need. So I would ask my colleagues to move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you to my colleagues. Just if I could make one amendment and strike a 2023 and put FY24. That was just an error on my part.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. First, I just want to thank Councilor Collins for her incredible leadership over the past 14 or so months to advance the ball on this ordinance. And I also want to thank Medford People Power and all of the organizations and individuals who came together to initiate this process, move it forward, have many, many community meetings and forums and discussions and conversations about getting it to where we are tonight. And I also want to acknowledge and thank the city administration and Chief Buckley for the many conversations that we've had to get to a place where we feel that this is something that we can enact, given the capacity of city staff and to address outstanding concerns. I also want to say that you know, one of the things that we talk about in government is when, you know, when you're trying to reach a compromise between parties who have different positions on issues, usually the end result is something that nobody is 100% ecstatic about. And I think this, after we put the amendments forward tonight, I think that this document will reflect that as well. And I say that because it's reaching an agreement between their stakeholders, again, with different approaches and thoughts around how this should be enacted, but also that as we move forward through this process, the intent of the ordinance is that it be long lasting and also that it adapt to change. And as the council considers surveillance reports for the first time, as the community adapts to changes in technology and all of the different things that come around them rapidly changing and growing. and surveillance technology environment across the world. I think we're going to have to come back and look at pieces of this, you know, in the future. So I just want to put that out there, too. And the great thing about this is that I really think it creates a strong foundation for us to have those conversations, to build trust and understanding in what the city is doing around these technologies that are you know, in many cases, new and unknown and have impacts and consequences that can't be foreseen. So that creating of a community process and a forum and a place for members of the Medford community to directly discuss what their local government is going to be doing when it comes to surveillance technology, I think is an incredibly important thing for us to do. And then I completely agree with Councilor Collins. that the state and federal governments are not taking the approach they need to take on us, and so it's up to local government to do so, and that local government is generally tends to be the level of government that has the most direct impact, the most direct interaction with people in their everyday lives, and that's the place where In many cases, surveillance could be the most impactful and could have the most negative impacts if not done correctly and not done with community control. So really thankful to Councilor Collins again for your leadership. If I may, I'd like to just propose that we amend, propose the 12 following amendments to the ordinance on the agenda. The first would be to strike some language from section 50-70. to provide protocols for use of surveillance technology or surveillance data that includes specific steps 2. The second is to strike and remove section 5071 C and D and adopt the updated section numbers. The third is to strike and remove the following language from section 5071 F and 5071 G subsection 3. and those language removals would be or significant property damage or loss and will be, and the phrase and will be used only in the surface of code enforcement. I'd like to further propose following amendments to adopt amendments, add new subsection to section 50-72, which would be B, body-worn cameras shall be exempt from section 50-72 of this ordinance until January 1st, 2028. Add a new subsection.
[Zac Bears]: No, it's actually going to exempt our approval. Those, if those were to be used by the city they would not have to be approved by the city council for five years until January 1 2028. And that would also add to the section 50-73 the same clause, 50-74 the same clause, technical amendment to 50-74 subsection A to change the language to no later than 90 days following the effective date of this ordinance or prior to implementation of any new surveillance technology use covered by this ordinance. strike the first sentence of section 50 77 B and replace it with scope and intentions. The annual surveillance report is to provide a written report on an annual basis that contains a high level and generalized summary of policies and usages concerning surveillance technology used by any city department during the previous year and containing the information set forth in section 50 dash 77 of this ordinance. The eighth amendment is to strike and remove section 50 dash 77 C subsections four, five and nine and update the section numbers. Ninth Amendment is to strike section 50-79B and replace with B cause of action. Any violation of this ordinance constitutes an injury and any person may institute proceedings for injunctive relief, declaratory relief or writ of mandate in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce this ordinance. Any actions instituted under this paragraph shall be brought against the city and if necessary to effectuate compliance with this ordinance, any other governmental agency with possession, custody or control of data subject to this ordinance. striking the following sentence from section 59 C and this is due to federal and state Supreme State court rulings that this can't be done by ordinance would be striking the sentence. A court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiff who is the prevailing party in an action brought to enforce this ordinance. We'd also strike in a move section 5080 and update the section numbers to reflect that and finally strike section 5081 and replace it with, quote, it shall be unlawful for the city to enter into any contract for monetary value with a commercial entity that provides the city with a mass acquisition of privately generated and own bulk surveillance data, any contracts or agreements signed prior to the enactment of this ordinance that violate this section shall not be renewed. After the completion of the term of said contracts or agreements, Section 5080 shall not apply to contracts or agreements executed for law enforcement operations or purposes. And those are the amendments. Can the clerk read those back, please?
[Zac Bears]: Well, this was reported out of committee and then reported out of committee of the whole.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, no, these are.
[Zac Bears]: These are amendments that I just proposed them, but that councilor Collins and I, as the people who filed the paper, we met in negotiations with the mayor and the chief to develop a list of further amendments after the paper had been reported out of both the subcommittee and the committee of the whole.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I'll keep it short and just say that appreciate you coming forward, Chief, tonight and your engagement in the discussions and negotiations prior to tonight. Something that I've seen out of the conversations that I've been able to be a part of is that I personally, and I hope we can agree on at least this part, I do think that we share the same goals of having the trust and the process and the public understanding of what we're doing. I think where we've differed is on the approach and the details of that process, you know, and from as one person involved. I think we've tried to find a middle ground between the two positions about which that process should look like and my hopes are that that will mean that we can move forward to achieve the goals that we do share around it. And, you know, again, something that I said earlier and I'll reiterate is it's a foundation, something to look at in the long term, but also something that we can look at as practice happens and make adjustments. And, you know, I think that that openness to do that is the key. in any sense to being successful as things change and as things are so rapidly changing as a surveillance technology or the practices of implementing those technologies. So I just wanted to say that and end there. I'm going to support this tonight. Obviously, I'm going to support it with the amendments. And I think as we go from that point, we'll be able to have a public process around the surveillance technology that we hadn't had before. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President. Is there anyone else?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Period. Thank you, Madam President. Motion to approve the paper for first reading as amended.
[Zac Bears]: Well, if we need two votes, I propose the amendments. If you want to vote on the amendments and then vote on the paper, I'm more than fine with that. I think we should vote. I think we should.
[Zac Bears]: I'll withdraw my second motion and I'll move to amend the ordinance as I had read earlier.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve the ordinance for first reading as amended.
[Zac Bears]: So the specific things here, number one, Tufts could just give this to all the students that they house, and that would be fine. It'd be another packet in the many packets of papers that they give to their students. And secondly, when it comes to off-campus housing, that would be private landlords, and therefore they would be providing this information to their tenants or the other residents. When students sign an agreement to enter dormitory housing, they sign a specific contract for a specific period that's very different from a standard rental lease. requirements, penalties and needs around that are different. I, you know, generally you don't see students squatting after, you know, homecoming or, sorry not homecoming, but you know, graduation just to try to uphold their eviction rights for 60 days. I don't think I've ever seen that at any university that I've ever been a part of. When it comes to the discretion piece, there's nothing in here that says the board of health may do what they want or the health director may do what they want. It's just a common understanding that any level of government in this country, state, federal, local, the executive branch is the branch that enforces the law and they may enforce that law at their discretion, right? We see that with a number of things with You can go from president to president, and some presidents choose to enforce certain parts of the law, and some presidents choose to enforce different parts of the law, and we have lots of debates around that. Going back to Councilor Collins' point initially, I think that really is the crux of this is we had the conversations about what is this gonna look like, how is it gonna be implemented, and what is the purpose that it's gonna serve? And it's going to be a document, Developed can even kind of a modification of existing documents that have been created around the rights of renters and homeowners and their and their housing rights and resources, it's going to be. created by the city, distributed to property owners, and primarily the goal is to have it be an educational tool to ensure that everyone in the city, whether you're a homeowner or a landlord, a tenant, or anyone else, has a clear picture of what your rights are. And in terms of the specifics of enforcement, the first violation is a written warning. The second violation is the fine that you noted. Pursuant to Chapter 40, Section 21D of Mass General Law, And even more so than that I did a fine per incident not a fine per day so it wouldn't be $300 a day would be if someone. And again, the intent here, both the intent of us and the intent of the administration that we worked with is that this is not just know, going around and finding people willy nilly, it's trying to get folks to provide the relevant legal information to everyone who has housing in the city so that they can better understand what their options are in any situation. But in any case, the way that it would be implemented, or the way that the enforcement structure is written, If I'm a landlord and I didn't provide my tenant this information, and I was then told about the existence of this ordinance, and then I started providing the information, that wouldn't be an issue. If I didn't provide the information, was told about the ordinance, and then continued on to provide the information for whatever reason, then I could be given a written warning. And then if I didn't provide it to a tenant on the inception or the termination of a tenancy or a lease, then I would be fined $300 one time, not $300 a day until I provided the information. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: If I may add the motion.
[Zac Bears]: The reason there's a fine is that there. Otherwise, if no one if people don't do it and the city doesn't have any authority to further ask them to do it. I don't mind if we reduce the fine, but also if we find out because the finest so is that an amount that is not sufficient to convince a property owner to otherwise follow the law. then I think we'd have to revisit that. So I'm fine, we'll test it out at 50. I mean, again, as we said, the intent was educational and my understanding is that at least on the first pass and probably multiple passes of going through the property on our list and asking them to submit this, the Board of Health won't issue fines at all. But again, I think if we come back here and find out, we hear from the Board of Health, well, there's 200 problem properties in the city that aren't gonna issue this because they'll pay 50 bucks and they have an objection to it, then we may have to come back and revisit it.
[Zac Bears]: Just to that point, I believe I also saw recently that according to the head of the post office here in Medford, they're down almost a third on their delivery staff right now. And that's probably the main reason here. And there's a variety of reasons that could be true. But one of them is I think that our postal workers are underpaid significantly. And I think that if we maybe should consider a resolution to encourage higher pay for postal workers, and maybe then we'll get more filling of the openings in our current delivery services, open positions. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information, if I may. The letter we got said that the administration told those people to buy their own insurance. in the interim. So I just want to be clear about that too. It's not just, we're not going to give it to you. They're saying, go buy some, you know? So yeah, it's ridiculous. They have to purchase insurance in Massachusetts. You have to be insured you get penalized. You're right. It's just, I'm just, I just want to add that to the conversation. It's not just, we're not going to give it to you. It's go buy your own, even though you're entitled to a benefit.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I'm going to try to be as brief as I can, but I think the quote that stood out to me that you said, Mr. South, is we can't get any answers. I think you said that directly. I think all of us behind this rail feel exactly the same way. It's not the same. It's far worse for people not to be getting raises and benefits and pay and health care that affects their families and their lives. But we do share the fact that when we ask for information, we ask for anything, we don't get it either from this administration. Frustrated may even be a kind word. I think there's days when I'm furious. We aren't getting what we need. And I just want to put on the table here for you, and then I have a question at the end. There's 12 items that have been sitting on our agenda table, some of them for over a year that we've been holding on because we don't get basic information on the budget there's another three items on our agenda that are asking for basic information on the budget and finances that we don't get. The only reason there was an assistant city solicitor job posting is because we made it clear that we weren't going to pass a budget unless they created the position. And we held multiple meetings to expose the budget issues last June and we haven't gotten any answers for nine months so I completely share your frustration and the frustration of every city employee that we don't have answers. You know, city employees are the lifeblood of the city, they make it run. And I completely agree with what Councilor Scarpelli said, the fact that everybody has been showing up every day and doing their job in the face of treatment that they may not have experienced in 10 or 20 years, or even two months. I don't care if you're a brand new employee, you're coming to work and you know that you're not getting a raise, or you're brand new to the city and you're being told you're not getting healthcare and you're still coming and doing your job, it's deeply appreciated. And it also shows why so many people are leaving from all the different positions that you mentioned before. I just had a question on the healthcare piece that was brought up. I know you didn't bring it up and it came up here, so no issues if you don't have the answer. Do you know if every new hire is being told they're not getting healthcare or is it selective?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and that's become very clear to me with the information that I've seen over the last few days, but I also just want to see and make sure that it's not selective, if you get what I'm saying. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Because that would, you know, just add insult to injury. And then in terms of the bargaining sessions, hey, I'd be happy to take you up on your offer to attend one because I'd like to see what it's like. But you just want to clarify, you said the only people who talk on the city's behalf are representatives of KP law. Correct.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. You're very welcome. Thank you. And yeah, Mr. South, if you could just share, I appreciate you offered to share the information on the other contracts. If you could share that, and then if you have information on upcoming sessions, I'll try to find one that I could attend. I really appreciate it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilor Scarapelli for answering, asking so many questions I was going to ask. I just had one question on the landscaping condition, specifically as relates to the offering to replace landscaping if it dies of natural causes. I think that's number seven. It says, not because of snowplow or other inflicted harm caused by the cities or other third parties. And I just want to kind of determine what that means so we're all on the same page. When I see by snowplow, are you saying that if snow or ice is put on that landscaping and it causes it to have damage, that would not be replaced? Or are you saying that if it's hit with a snowplow, that's what would not be replaced? Your mic is also off, sorry. I don't know if you could get the little person talking.
[Zac Bears]: And if I just may say, and I'm happy to, Councilor has a follow up, I'm happy to defer to him in just a second. We contract out snow plowing. So it's not the same person who does that street every snowstorm, nevermind every year. We may need some mulligans in here. We may need a mulligan in here. I'm just saying, you know, this is basically a one and done. And I'm not saying every year we'd make the same mistake and you keep replacing it. I don't think that's fair to you. I completely understand that. But, you know, there may just be a little more communication needed there because someone could make a mistake at some point. And I just want to kind of maybe, you know, I count for that in some way, but I'll defer to Councilor Knight's follow up.
[Zac Bears]: Could we insert the word repeatedly in there somewhere just so that it's clear that it's not just a, you know, and I'm not trying to, you know, you could, no offense, but maybe the parties are completely different when this happens. And no one has an understanding of this conversation. I just want to make sure our intent is met.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Yeah. And that's what, you know, I'm not trying to box you into anything and I'm not saying you're trying to box us into anything. I just want to make sure we have a shared clear intent. I think reasonable minds can prevent. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'd like to move to approve the license with the following conditions. One, that BJ's will implement an advanced maintenance program, which will consist of weekly parking lot sweeping and day porter service three days a week.
[Zac Bears]: I am.
[Zac Bears]: Do you want to read over? All right.
[Zac Bears]: Part of the conditions is actually to narrow the size of the opening to make it safer and to make street improvements, as well as to monitor the lot to make sure that there aren't trucks and people sitting in the lot at night, and to improve the tree maintenance along all of Woodruff Avenue.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's a legal agreement.
[Zac Bears]: I was just going to motion to approve with the condition that the permit only go with the business and not the property.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, it was a motion to approve with the sole condition that the permit stay with the business and not with the property.
[Zac Bears]: A Dunk's. I just want to, if I may just say that I do completely agree with and making the motion with the understanding that those are where that's where we are.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. As folks know, there's a state building code that determines the requirements for construction across the state. There's a few different versions of it that municipalities can either opt into or otherwise. The longer history is that there were previously two versions, and now there's a specific specialized municipal opt-in code option that's become available that would allow the city to use the state's new building code, which provides for more green energy options in new construction. And I do have one amendment. If we could just add a quotation mark to the end of the resolution. Great, thank you. And I would move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so a couple things on that. First, this is just asking the office to draft the language that would be necessary to adopt it so there'd be a further discussion of whether or not it would be adopted. Secondly, my understanding and I'm neither a contractor nor working at the State Department of Environmental Affairs, but my understanding is it's kind of sets conditions but it doesn't require a specific system so it would actually be the designer of whatever the property is to, if they chose a system like that then they would be making that choice but it doesn't say you have to have XYZ system in place. So, you know, and, you know, I know there's a lot of, for example, our library is a very green building and it does have local lights in there so yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I don't think there's any, it's more of a broader set of requirements around general principles of environmental, you know, climate goals.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Nathan, do you know who did the project in your hometown?
[Zac Bears]: It was a subcontractor. It was a subcontractor who built the building, but. Bring it back when we have the new high school building committee, because we're not going to want to use them.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I just want to thank Anita Nagum for bringing this to my attention, which is that there was kind of a pretty major policy change by the MBTA over the summer that didn't get a lot of fanfare. which is that if you have you pay a single fare, you can now transfer from one subway trip to two additional bus trips, it used to be just one and one. So, you know, that's a pretty significant difference probably making a difference for a lot of folks who use the MBTA, but especially in the context of the bus redesign project and parts of the city that are now going to need to make additional transfers to get to where they're going. You know, there may be folks who would have said in the past. Well, I'm just going to do another route because I don't want to pay two fares, and they actually maybe wouldn't have to do that it will be able to save that money, you know, especially builds up if you're doing it every single day as anyone knows. I think we've had a lot of communication about the bus redesign project as a city. The MBTA has not done its job. Residents have taken up that spirit and done the outreach themselves. But as actual routes start to change or stops start to change, I think it would be important for riders to know that this is an option for them. And obviously, I also included to ask the MBTA to do that communication, but that is not quite as easy for us to ask for. So thank you, Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, and thank you to everyone. I think there should be further opportunities for us to address this as they ask us to change stops as well. So there's still more steps in the process before they move forward. I just want to further amend this to also request that the MBTA maintain a consistent form of public comment and feedback so that they're not changing it up.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, your mic's off. The little person.
[Zac Bears]: Given how much of the MBTA is publicly subsidized already, I doubt that it would be, you know, it's probably a loser on the profit and loss statement, but you can't always call Councilor Caraviello if you need a ride, so.
[Zac Bears]: So, I'm sorry, just to quickly clarify. So this would item would reappear on the agenda for 2014.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. It is season for city census forms. If you don't fill out your census form, you'll be marked as an inactive voter, and you'll have to provide additional information to become an active voter again when you go to vote in November. So, you know, I just want to make sure that given there's been a lot of mail disruption and delays in mail across the city, that, you know, A, that the forms are sent out and that, you know, they'll be accepted you know, potentially extending the deadline by which they'll be accepted or making clear to people that as long as they submit them before X date, they will be marked inactive. I just think that really needs to be clarified because there are places, you know, folks have been reporting, it's spot reporting. My mail has been pretty good, but people have been spot reporting, not getting mail for three or four days at a time. And so that's funny because my mail has been good every day and you live, yeah, you live like five minute walk and it's not coming to you. So there's been different issues. And I know that USPS is understaffed and there's also some national issues there, you know, really just want to get that communicated out because I know folks, they maybe some folks expect the census to come at a certain time and then it doesn't come so they're not expecting it when it does. So we're not looking for whatever it may be just maybe do a little bit of additional communicating with the city. We also did receive the elections after action report today at 416pm so that second clause is not is not there but I do know that I have two questions. I haven't been able to read that report, so I don't know what it says. So I just want to put that out there. I do have two questions. I want to strike that second paragraph of the resolution. I propose the amendment to strike that since we did receive the report. And I'd like to replace it with two things. The first would be, and Mr. Clerk, let me know when you're ready. Be it further resolved that the elections manager and elections commission share whether postcards will be mailed to all residents before the 2023 municipal election. Asking them if they want. Sorry, go ahead. Where are we up to? 10 o'clock.
[Zac Bears]: And I'd also like to amend it to include, you know, put in reports do that the 2023 election after action report and invite the elections manager to present that report and have a discussion with the council. Sorry, I just like the to add to reports do the 2023 the 2022 election after action report. and request that the election manager come to present it and discuss it. And I can email that to you after. Just want everyone to know what I'm requesting.
[Zac Bears]: I had my hand up. I just wanted to clarify one quick thing. It's just that you're marked inactive it's something you're taking off so you're still registered to vote, but you do have to provide additional documentation around your, around your address. So there is definitely a barrier that's created when you're marked inactive. I do believe, though, that that's actually a function of state law so I don't think it's a city policy, but I'd be definitely be interested in thought it was like one of those things where you have, you may not shout. And that would be good to know. My understanding is it isn't, but if it's the other way around.
[Zac Bears]: Which is one reason why I've reviewed this section of the law. But yeah, I just wanted to clarify that and further just state that when I bring up working with the local U.S. Postal Service, I mean the staff at the Medford branch of the post office. In the past, there has been a historic relationship between the registrar voters, now the Elections Commission and that office, especially as it relates to absentee ballots and vote by mail and the city census to make sure those things go out in a timely manner. And I want to make sure that that relationship is maintained and that that continues to happen as you noted, and everyone's noted that there is just a lot more election related mail happening now with so much vote by mail. So thank you, Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: For those who have gone paperless, they may not be getting it. I'm sorry, Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: I'm sorry, madam.
[Zac Bears]: Hey, we're not here till 1am every night, right?
[Zac Bears]: Just wanted to talk about paperless billing.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate it. I'm good.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it was.
[Zac Bears]: My understanding is that they had to use, they didn't use like the thermoplastic permanent paint because of the season. You know?
[Zac Bears]: It's clearly didn't last. I'm not defending it, but my understanding was they were planning to go back and do a better job in the spring and they let it go too long in the winter. And that's probably an indication of what we were talking about around the whole scheduling thing. Again, not to blame any specific party as to why things need to be scheduled the way they need to be scheduled, but it seems that the reason the paint went out is that it was scheduled incorrectly. And the reason that there did multiple passes and there are seams is because it was not scheduled in such a way that they could do a complete pour. So, you know, it goes back to this question of scheduling really at the end of the day. I heard they blamed the police chief. It's his fault. Well, and again, I'm not blaming anybody.
[Zac Bears]: I'm saying Eversource was told that. Well, they said it was an issue with details. And so they need to come together and get a better plan, right? Like that's really the answer. Especially for the second half. I think that's important.
[Zac Bears]: Just moved to waive the reading in favor of a brief summary.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, if you just want to say what it is, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you so much, Amanda and I'll be short and sweet because I think what I was going to say has been said but Number one, just thankful to everyone who's participated in the process and the staff and all of the consultants who've helped us come to this point. I think we can all agree that having a comprehensive plan is long overdue and bringing together all of the work of so many folks, you know, not just over the past year and a half, but also the past, you know, decade or two where we've had plans that didn't go anywhere, but have now maybe had some new life breathed into them by I think, um. Pulling them all together in one place, I think is a good thing. Um but I totally agree that now as as we're looking forward, this plan is designed to help us look forward. And the real question to me is the pace of change, you know, and the pace of action and I think you know, being honest about the level of resources and funding that's going to be necessary to take advantage of the great opportunities that this plan presents. Um it's going to be really
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, would you be comfortable summarizing the how we got to this point, or?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. If I could just ask Attorney Austin a question, maybe to expand upon a little bit more of how we got here. When we unanimously denied the original petition in 2021, then BJ filed suit. And essentially my understanding of why this case has now been remanded to the council for further consideration is that Um, BJ's, uh, that that are reasons for denying the license were did not meet legal muster. Um, is that correct? Attorney Austin?
[Zac Bears]: And just further on that. And, you know, feel free to answer within the bounds of being legal counsel to us while there's pending litigation but. my understanding of the consequence if the council maintains its denial of the permit and then the case plays out and it is determined that the council's justification for denying the license was not legally valid, that then the other conditions placed on the license by other city boards and commissions would no longer be in effect.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you, and I'll end it there.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I appreciate that. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: It does look like at the southeast corner of the building, you're adding what looks to me to be maybe some curving to curve the street a little bit, to curve kind of that entryway a little bit more. And then is there additional curbing being added in the parking area as well to kind of delineate the roadways more than they currently are delineated now, or does that indicate existing curbing?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I notice it's a tight corner. But right now, you could probably swing a pretty straight shot all the way from the back of the building all the way to the substation. It looks like there's going to be some stuff to mitigate that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Jumping back to the late night sound and cleaning issues. So I think one of the issues that I, you know, we've had a lot of email chains around the property over time because of stuff happening late at night. Sometimes it may be trucks that aren't your guys. Some days it might be the backup noise from delivery from your trucks. I think recently it was actually like vacuum trucks of some kind sweeping. It was like street sweepers and they were just there late at night. And it ended up being, and I'm not sure you're aware of it, or I'm not sure exactly how it was dispensed of, but it was a violation of the city noise ordinance. And I believe the police were notified, code enforcement was notified, and like a ticket was issued, or at least a warning was issued. And I believe that was probably authorized activity.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no. And so and the reason I bring it up, and I appreciate that, that commitment, I think, you know, Some of this is going to be about coming up with a framework of a system where we can be in dialogue. And when things come up, we can engage more directly.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And that's, you know, I want to acknowledge that that's a, that's a piece of kind of what we're looking at as a sort of a conditions for, for this license. And I appreciate that. And I know we're going to, you know, iterate and work through that over time, um, where that, you know, there's going to be things that fall through the cracks and we're going to need to make sure that, uh, you know, accountability is there when that happens. Um, but I just wanted to flag that because, you know, for, for, uh, the advanced maintenance program of the weekly sweeping and the day Porter service, you said it's five days a week of the day Porter service. And, and the spring and fall landscaping vacuuming emptying of dumpsters and stuff, you know, that's all going to happen. I just want to make sure that's happening before 10pm at night, you know, is that Yeah, absolutely.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And, you know, again, it was, you know, it hasn't happened since the resident reported it and it was addressed. So I don't know if the on-site person, something happened and I understand there's contracts. So again, I'm not trying to place blame, just say what happened and mention that that's, you know, I think the goal of whatever we agree to and come up with should be that if there are issues, they're addressed promptly and don't happen again. And I think it seems like there's a commitment there. On dumpsters and trash receptacles and, you know, maintenance of landscaping. I just want to flag for you guys that probably makes sense for your maintenance team to just review the city did pass a road road and control ordinance recently I haven't heard anything specific about the site around that so I'm not making any allegations of such but it's just a new ordinance that we passed recently that I think would make sense for the folks involved and on the ground to be aware of so that if there are issues they're just there in compliance in advance. On the landscaping maintenance, I know that you did commit to landscaping the new on-site pieces. Now for the Woodrofab and for the Woodrofab improvements that are technically not on the property of BJ's, are those going to be maintained over time by BJ's as well?
[Zac Bears]: Right, and on that front, you know, I think the, And from the renderings it looks like that's going to provide a real natural vegetative barrier that's going to help with sound at site issues, which I think is great. The flip side of that is that looks like a lot of stuff to maintain to me and and you know and I'm not an expert in landscaping or maintenance of landscaping but You noted in the presentation that there was utility work done and trees ended up dying. And you've kind of seen that the city has not had the resources to go back and fix that issue on our own. We're very tight for money and it's a constant issue on all fronts. So I just want to, I appreciate the one year warranty and I appreciate the improvements. I just don't want us to be back here in five years and half of it's dead and the city saying we can't really maintain this or we don't have the funds too. So I just want to kind of play that out a little bit.
[Zac Bears]: But that would even be for the landscaping that's on the public right away?
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I mean, I guess could we, you know, would you be comfortable if we kind of formalize that in more specific written language as a condition that the that there'd be the potential for the landscaping, on-site landscaping to address issues in the public right away on Woodruff Ave or, you know.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I think that's exactly right.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. And that sounds right. And really where I'm getting at here is I think the goal here, and I think kind of how we all got to this point, is a lack of trust. And I know you know, and I think you've done, basically, however we can structure an agreement to build trust, rebuild it, and then maintain it in the long run, so that the city government, you guys on your end, and the residents all have certainty and clarity about how that arrangement's gonna work, is, I think, really important. So I appreciate that, and I think that that would go a long way on that front.
[Zac Bears]: Just on the last couple of things, I have a few more things, and I apologize for monopolizing time. Just on the annual report, could we just put in a specific date of it will be annually by May 31st? Is that a comfortable, acceptable to you all?
[Zac Bears]: That sounds great to me. I just think any annualized date will help. Then we know when it's coming, and we're not asking around for it, and you guys aren't wondering if you've met the deadline. Last couple things on the BJ's representative, I appreciate that as well. Something, if you would be comfortable with it, would you be amenable to us, the city of Medford making that person's contact information in some form available on our city website.
[Zac Bears]: Well, yeah, not necessarily his personal information.
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I did not realize it was going to be a personal cell phone number. I would not ask that to be placed on the city website. But, you know, something, and kind of in addition to a slash around this, I don't know how your website structure works. I don't even know if you are an expert on that. But is there a page for this specific store somewhere on the BJ's website? Absolutely. Could you put something on there pointing to the city of Medford, you know, if you have question or concern, you can reach the City of Medford. The City of Medford can help you reach us to address it or something like that, you know. I don't know how many people are going to your website to complain about you, quite frankly, but, you know, I'm just trying to think of ways that we can make it clear to people that there is an option here that if you have a question or concern that you want addressed, you know, and if you come to the city website, it tells you who here can help you address that. If it goes to your website, you could say the city, we have an arrangement with the city or
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, that's fine. Yeah, I was just kind of exploring that one out a little bit more but, again, I think the someone in the city having a personal phone number being able to have that direct contact is very important to us. Last couple things, or last final thing, actually, is on the improvements on Middlesex Ave. Are those, and again, you're not MassDOT and you're not the city of Medford in terms of opening roads, so I appreciate the... commitment to making some significant improvements to the roadscape on Middlesex Ave. Just my question, I couldn't quite tell from the plans, are those going to dead end at the Malden line and then at whatever that barrier is to the south? Or is it connecting to an existing bike lane or other improvement?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah, that's just helpful for me to know. It's obviously a jurisdictionally difficult area, so I understand why some of that is the way it is. Thank you. And I'm done. Thank you, Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you to my fellow councilors. Thank you to everyone who's spoken tonight. You know, whatever it was, 20 months ago, I was the one who said, I don't think we should ever build a gas station in Medford again. I still believe that. However, although it wasn't cited in the case, I don't believe that statement. I have learned a lot about what our authority and power is, not just from this case, but from other cases. what are rationales that we are able to use or not able to use to accept or deny special permits and licenses of this manner. And while I would like to see potentially changes to state law, or I don't even know if it's doable by local ordinance or not, to say that The transition that we're making away from fossil fuel use and cars is a valid reason that you know we should not build more gas stations in the city. That's not my understanding from the council that we've received. a reason to deny a business a license or a permit for something that is allowed by our zoning code. Given that statement, you know, I'm at this point tend to agree with my fellow Councilors about which way this is leaning, given that we are going to keep the public hearing open through our January 31st meeting to allow for a six day public comment period, I would also further move, and the clerk's gone.
[Zac Bears]: I was gonna make a motion.
[Zac Bears]: I can sit tight. Is there someone else who wants to say something else?
[Zac Bears]: Oh, no.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, thank you, Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: I was expected to speak. Well, I'll do so then. Is he back? Oh, he's back. All right, I only have 10 seconds. I just want to further just indicate that the intent here is to make sure that whatever conditions are applied to this permit are not just enforceable, but enforced. And part of building trust and building a strong and accountable relationship is going to be holding us accountable to the agreement we make. So I just want to make that very clear.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. When you're ready, Mr. Clerk. Thank you. It's just a motion that the city council president, the city clerk and legal counsel assigned to the city council by the administration. Compile the list of conditions, uh, that I think have been discussed tonight into a single document that that be shared with all parties involved prior to the 1 31 meeting. or prior to the continuation of the public hearing on January 31st.
[Zac Bears]: I'll move to keep the public hearing open to our January 31st regular meeting.
[Zac Bears]: If we could also add to that, or. just an understanding that there's some conditions that were discussed tonight that are kind of had never been discussed before, like the speed bumps and not maintenance, but the maintaining preservation. Yeah, exactly. So if we could include those in that list as well.
[Zac Bears]: That sounds comprehensive to me, Madam President, just that it be the screening that's in the public right-of-way would be replaced if it dies for that one. So it's because they have the maintenance of what's on their property, and then they also agreed to something around the public right-of-way as well, that the screening, if things die, would be replaced.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and I appreciate that super comprehensive. Thank you, council.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I mean, again, I just think we're walking into this, like if we had, I can't, I can't remember his name, but we had the attorney who was here for when we were discussing FlexRide in public session, who basically said there was, you know, just cause you don't like the business model, you can't deny the special permit. for Lyft, you know, so I don't wanna get us in that situation here again.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, I just don't wanna make a decision without council present. I mean, I'm also, it's five to 7 a.m. I just, I don't want to vote for it. That's all I'm saying.
[Zac Bears]: We can't do any more than that, right?
[Zac Bears]: Given what Councilor Collins just said, which is a really, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Uh, sorry, Madam President. I was gonna be short. Um, to his papers are still here. Luckily, um, there's a sign. There's a sign, uh, to Councilor Collins point, which I had not considered at all. You're right. They're not asking for something that's by right. They're asking for an exception to our legal ordinances to be allowed to operate outside of normal operating hours. Um, which again, you know, I'd like to ask counsel, so I don't know if maybe we close the public hearing, but, uh, we close the public hearing and table deliberation further? Is that possible or?
[Zac Bears]: So maybe we do that. But given what Councilor Collins is very cogent point that this is a completely different contextual situation around what we're, we may have different options before us. So that would be my question. You know, a so I would move to close the close the public hearing, but we're going to move on to the next item. Keep keep this on our agenda as the six for our next meeting as the 60 public comment period continues. And I'd further motion to request. That council provide us with, uh. Basic list of reasons that what is what are our options when it comes to approval or denial of the permit? And what reasons do we have
[Zac Bears]: That's why I'm asking for.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just one of seven.
[Zac Bears]: I'll withdraw my motion for another motion if that.
[Zac Bears]: If we had a city solicitor would not cost as much.
[Zac Bears]: You'll hear about that on Facebook tomorrow. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I wish that we did not have to discuss the open dirt pits on the Fellsway so often in this forum, but here we are. There are open dirt pits on the Fellsway, still from the construction that's been happening over the last nine months. In many areas, it's like a four inch drop off of the sidewalk, which could lead to falls, injuries and other issues, nevermind the aesthetic issues going on. heard from a number of residents in recent weeks and months who are concerned about this. I'd love to hear if there's any any communication from DCR to the city about, you know, we have to wait till spring to put certain things in or why it's been left this long and make sure that there's a commitment that it's not just going to be left in its current state, which is deplorable. And again, when it comes to DCR, I requested almost at least six months ago at this point for the mayor to work with Senator Jalen's office. Senator Jalen's office graciously offered to help schedule an onsite visit from the DCR commissioner to the city to look at a number of problem issues like the river bank, maintenance of the Mystic Valley Parkway, Fellsway, Fellsway West, et cetera. And that still has, I have not heard back on when that's gonna be scheduled. So yeah, I mean, it's just still a mess with DCR and it really needs to get fixed because there's situations all over the city that from not just aesthetics, but from, you know, physical potential or physical injury could cause serious harm to members of the city and community who just want to walk down the street. So I'd really like an urgent response here. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Todd.
[Zac Bears]: To that point, I don't think that the vote's gonna go any different if we vote it now. I would move to table this to our January 31st meeting and request both the, the presence of legal counsel at that meeting because I think the real answer here is to your point which is we, I'm not even sure the quantum is five quite frankly on this, I'd have to double check on it. So, I'm not sure how many votes we need and I'm not sure what our authority is to approve or deny zoning thing it did need to five so we are okay so okay but All right, you know, so I just think to Councilor Scarpelli's initial point around this whole thing, we're better off having council in the room when we make decisions like this. So I would move to table till January 31st meeting and request the presence of council. I would second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I will be as brief as I can on this, because I generally tend to agree with the analysis from Councilor Knight when it comes to the fact that we are still waiting to have that full comprehensive budget meeting with all the materials that we requested, including the past three years of Warren articles of which we've now received a grand total of one month, along with the other financial information we need. However, I just do want to just say to the council and I believe we were all on the communication so I don't think I'm breaking any news here. whether I may have given the mayor the idea to start putting these on the agenda. When I said, you know, we were kind of getting emails back and forth. What do you think about ARPA? What do you think about this? And I said, you know, we're not really having votes. We're not being consulted. And I think we should be. And she basically went all the way there, but then stopped short of actually giving us the decision-making power to approve or deny large appropriations, which is what I was requesting the whole time. So I just want to put that out there and say, you know, I believe this may be an attempt to meet what we were asking for when it comes to being truly consulted and having authority over ARPA, I don't think it meets that mark because at the end of the day there's no authority give it to the council to actually approve them but I just want to put that context out there. Because I think people should know, you know, what we asked for was that present, or at least what I asked for and shared with the council was that it must be presented the council and we'd be able to approve them or deny them. And we got them presented to us but without any authority to actually approve or deny them so all we can do is really say hey we like this we don't like this and it may be considered it may not be considered. But I would second the motion to receive in place on file. Councilor Cariollo.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk. Councilor Bears. I would like to nominate Nicole Morell for council president.
[Zac Bears]: agreeable to the rules and regulations of the constitution the laws of this commonwealth the laws of this commonwealth and the ordinances of the city of manhattan and the ordinances of the city of manhattan congratulations i also i want to thank my colleagues thank president morel um it's been a difficult year but i think in many respects uh we've done incredible work um and we have a lot more to do in this upcoming year to finish out our term. I mean, there's so much on our agenda that I'm excited to get to work on in partnership with all of you. So thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. This is an agenda item traditionally offered by the Vice President for the previous year. just adopting all of our rules for the rest of this term for the year 2023, so I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, similar motion, just moving all of the papers that are in committee and on the table to the current year. And I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I know that ideas like this have been discussed many times in the city. As everyone is aware, we have our big sweep twice a year, and there's not really posted signage anywhere in the city indicating when that's going to occur. So for many residents, that means either you're in the know or you're not. And when you're not in the know, that can mean a ticket or a tow, and an inconvenience to say the least, and a significant financial burden on residents of the community. You know, I have personally spoken to many residents who've been caught up in this, and you know, the answer, well, you sign up for email notifications, and you're not gonna, you know, that's not really the answer that I wanna be able to provide, and I don't think it's the answer that the city should be providing. Similarly, during snowstorms, you know, there's always someone who doesn't know about odd even, or what year is which, and we have some streets in the city where you can't get by. You know, Bob can't get by if there's a car in the wrong place, so it's a ticket or a tow, and that's only if they catch him before the snow falls. So for public safety reasons, for quality of life, for making sure that residents are, you know, not, you don't have to be in the know to avoid a penalty like this. I really think that we should move in the direction of trying to put up signage on all the streets where this applies to the best of our ability so that residents are informed when they, you know, it's a lot easier to say to a resident who gets sick at her toad, the signs right there, you know, you really got to read that sign. It makes the information much more accessible. In terms of the content itself, You know, I foresee that it's possible. You know, I know the big sweep happens on different days and you have odd even in alternating years, but I really think it's possible that we could at least put up a sign that says, these are the months when the big sweep that generally happens. You know, these are the months when we generally have snow. Visit the city website for specific details on those days and times. And then, you know, it's not the perfect solution. I mean, the perfect solution would be a better process and more funding to do something more than the big sweep every year. I know in neighboring communities, they have, you know, every Tuesday, we do street sweeping, and then it's real easy, because you only have to, you know, you don't have to take that extra step when you look at the sign, all the information you need is right there. But I just think we need to do more on this front, especially for better or worse, now that there's a in-house, you know, parking program at some point that should produce, I would believe, some revenue to potentially support a program like this, and again, So many residents so many people you know who have been affected by this have made it a point to reach out and say, can we do something better it's something I hear really often so I would really appreciate my colleagues support and hopefully the support of the mayor and the Traffic Commission as well. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: you know, that's a good point about something maybe we could add to the housing stability notification ordinance that we were close on. You know, we could add that in as something that they should include, you know, not just here's your rights around housing stability, but here's some key city resources around parking, snow removal, et cetera. I think that would be a really easy addition to make to that. And I'd just like to propose an amendment to this resolution. I think maybe it sounds like we're all on basically the same page that we just want this to be better than it is now. And I'm not married to, you know, we must have my $300,000 street sign program. So I would propose an amendment first to strike the word implement in the first sentence and replace it with the word explore. And then I have a further amendment that I can read out when the clerk's ready. Great. It would be be it further resolved that the mayor and traffic commission report back on barriers to adding signage as well as current actions. Yep. To improve communications. regarding street sweeping and snow emergencies for discussion with the council. And then we'll get whatever they send back to us. We get a cyber to send it once we get the communication.
[Zac Bears]: If I may just quickly, that is embarrassing. Thank you. Yeah. And then I think to that point, You know, I was reading, I think, a welcoming committee agenda, something that came through our packet recently. And it seemed like they may be sending something to people.
[Zac Bears]: OK.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. So I had seen that on the agenda. Yeah, it seemed like they were going to be sending something out. So maybe that's something we could try to have a rolling discussion as well.
[Zac Bears]: I thought I had something else to say, but now I've completely lost.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you to everyone who spoke. I just want to echo what everybody else said. I think this is an issue, and it's like many issues in the city, where if everyone's on the same page and we can work together as a team, we have a better chance of getting things done. I think that's generally true about most things in life. But I have been hearing a lot more from residents lately around the noise. And, you know, it is, if you look at the the heat map of flights, it is every flight, if the wind patterns are right, every minute or two minutes, right over a great vast majority of the city. So at the very least, while we may not be able to stop it unilaterally, or even as has been said, we are so far away from the decision making on this where it's at the federal level. I think we all share an understanding of how impactful this is on so many residents in their daily lives. just wanted to share that. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, could we take papers under suspension 23-008, 23-009, 23-010, and 22-612? All right, and these are all under suspension? Three under suspension, one from the table. Okay. And then 612, 2612.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And just, I appreciate what you just said, Councilor Scarpelli. to try to capture that in the scope of the resolution, would something, amend the motion to read, be resolved by the Medford City Council that we request a joint meeting with the school committee to discuss the items requested by the council at our December 20th council meeting and funding for Medford public schools, including the FY 24 budget, that council president and chair of the school committee shall coordinate the scheduling of this meeting.
[Zac Bears]: That would be that would work. Yeah. And I you want me to read that I could get you the language email. Okay. Yeah. Too long. too fast.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Madam President, thank you Shanine, thank you Peter, thank you to everyone else on the team who brought this together. It's a highly detailed plan, clearly a product of a lot of hard work and community conversations. One of my first ever things that I did when I was starting to run for office is I was in Mia Mastone's living room with about eight other parents, and we were talking about the flooding and the drainage and the deteriorating conditions of this playground. So it's really great to see. that we have something that we think, not only a plan that we think is viable, but that hopefully could be funded. So that's really great to hear. I just have a couple of questions. on the lifetime of this playground? Like if we go with this, so I know that was a concern with the previous playground is it's only been 20 or so years, it's really in poor condition. How long will this last the city?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And that's really what I was going at, is because it seems like the design on the first pass of the whole thing was basically wide open space, all of this fill in place, you know, whatever. the spongy surface and you know some clay structures put on top of it and it sounds like here we're going with a design where you know certainly there may be structures or pieces of structures that need to be replaced in 20 to 25 years but that we feel like the design is more sustainable over the long term as certain elements are.
[Zac Bears]: And that was, you know, maintenance and drainage is my next question. I know those are major concerns and definitely after the presentation, it sounds like they're being highly considered in the whole design that, you know, long term drainage solution for this area as part of the design and construction and funded through this project. So that's really good to hear. And Peter, you were saying that maintenance is going to be more of a priority going forward or has been become more of a priority in recent years. So are we confident that the funding within the existing budget is going to be there to maintain this over the long term?
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I guess just something for me or future people looking at the budget, you know, it may be useful and it may not have the same power that I'm thinking it might have now, just to say, this is how much we think it would probably cost to keep this in good condition every year. And then that's something that we can try to make sure is in the budget or the school committee can try to make sure isn't there, but you know, however it works out just so that we can look at it and say, okay, we think we're meeting this goal.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and that's great. Just that active, and again, it sounds, I'm really glad to hear that it sounds like that's going on, that active constant, you know, assessment and so that we have the information in good times and bad times to know how much we're going to need to keep these in good condition, you know, I think is a helpful and I think you're, you're correct on the point of, you know, that capital planning has not been the strength of the city for a long time. And so It's something we really need to be focusing on when we're looking at investments like this.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And then just my last question and then one comment. You know, I know there's been a lot of concerns lately around artificial turf fields, both from an environmental and a health and safety perspective, and it sounded to me like what we're doing here is we're trying, even though we're going with turf because it's the only durable way, and I was the first fifth grade at the Newbrook School, so that grass field was great for soccer games for my year, even if it didn't last. You know, you said we're not gonna use rubber as the infill material, and if you could just go into that a little bit more, you know, What are the choices we're making around the turf field to make sure that we're, from an environmental and a health perspective for the students, making sure that it's the best that we can do?
[Zac Bears]: Great yeah no and that's super helpful just you know, there's really movements around like, we will not do a turf field again and it sounds like I'm glad to hear from a that we're considering all those effects and be that there's different options that are coming in place that are not, you know, so detrimental to you know, It's the health piece too, like people saying there's negative health impacts from just the rubber and not just physical injury, but potentially long-term impacts from, yeah, exactly. And then just finally, you know, and I'm sure Councilor Caraviello may say the same thing in one second, I'd say just reach out to friends of the Medford Public Library and see if they can give any tips on the private, and great, because, you know, they just did such a wonderful job raising money for the library, and I can only guess that the folks who supported that would be supportive of a project like this too, so.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Just wanted to add to Councilor Caraviello's point that potentially, forming a foundation. I don't know if it could just be for school playgrounds or maybe for parks and playgrounds in general in the city. This could be a way for this project to pay forward to the future projects. Like you have secured funding, one-time funding for this project. Maybe naming rights on the pavilion could be saved and used for one of the future projects. So just, you know, just wanna throw that out there. Councilor Caraviello knows everybody, but I'm happy to help in any way that I can too.
[Zac Bears]: Present
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to suspend the rules to take papers 22-584, 22-609, 22-603, and 22-604.
[Zac Bears]: 603, 604.
[Zac Bears]: And 584.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: And motion for a brief summary.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: My intention was to 609 next that's the eviction license.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Penny, for reaching out to me to make this presentation. I think it's really important for us to hear and for anyone who's, you know, in the community to hear the great work that we're doing. I think this is really showing how we're bringing together so much of the response work and whether we're talking about climate or you know, substance use disorder or food insecurity or housing insecurity, all the other issues that we know so many people in our community are facing. But also just bringing the community together in general and building a more resilient community. I mean, I think something that we have been talking about and will continue to be talking about is social emotional support for young people in our community. And also, you know, making sure that seniors have connection to the resources that they need in our community. And I just think that this is really showing that there's an intentional approach and that the staff on the ground are really doing amazing work. not just in bringing in funding so that we can do this, which I know is really tough. And one of the reasons that it hadn't been done before is we have huge budgetary problems. So I'm glad that there's a pool of money that you're able to access for this, but also how we can really embed it throughout all of our public institutions, from our public schools, to our city departments, to our nonprofit organizations going forward. It's really impressive work, really thankful to you and everyone who's been working on it and obviously continue to love to support and help out where I can. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And I also do recognize that Councilor Knight did submit an amendment to this paper requesting that the documents be presented to the council in advance of a presentation and that the presentation be tabled to the next regularly scheduled meeting. So I don't know what you have tonight for us, Director Dickinson. I'd be happy to hear kind of a short update, but I do agree that in order for us to be fully prepared for a budget presentation and financial update, having the documents in advance would be helpful. So I don't want to speak for council tonight beyond that, but I do understand that. a concern. So, you know, I'll just put that out there.
[Zac Bears]: They're never presented to us, Bob.
[Zac Bears]: 2020 to the present is what we're requesting.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information. Thank you, Madam President. If we could, I think it sounds like we should just get on paper right now what we're asking for.
[Zac Bears]: It's not exclusive to the finance department, Bob. It's almost, unless we make the outreach directly, every paper that we submit to the mayor's office to almost any department, we're not getting the response in a timely manner or a complete manner. So I just wanna put that out there and I'm not gonna ask you to say that, I'll say it. The first thing I wanna just get on, so yes, I think the first thing we'd really like to see would be the AP warrants from January 2020 to present. And I know that's probably a pretty big file, but I think we'd all like to see it electronically and also to be sent to the clerk to be delivered to us.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I mean, we can also send you an example of what the previous finance or finance director gave us for...
[Zac Bears]: Right. I mean, the other thing we can send you is Aleesha Nunley Benjamin did provide us with copies of what we call warrant articles and we can provide you an example of that so that you can see what those reports were like. And then the two things that you said that you have with you tonight, you said you had a quarter one
[Zac Bears]: And then the other thing that you said is you have revenue projections.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I don't mean this to be exhaustive. I'm sure other Councilors are going to have other items, but basically what would be also very helpful is if you could take anything, anything that we request tonight, send them to us in a digital format and the clerk in a digital format, he can provide it to us in a print format. And then if we can have that, you know, maybe by the end of this week, then we could have a full presentation from you in January, as Councilor Knight had requested, where we've had time to review the documents in advance to ask, have our questions ready.
[Zac Bears]: I'm through, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Just amend the motion to request that the finance director submit to the clerk in the council and digital format, the documents requested and documents that we listed out earlier. And I'll leave it at that but I do think we should try to schedule this early in January and try to figure out.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Nobody's happy. There's disagreements about this. I don't think there's any single person. And if there is, they got to get checked out who was happy about what happened yesterday. I think everyone agrees and agreed six months ago, or two months ago, or two days ago, that there are things that need to be improved, that there are problems that need to be solved, that we're not always, and even if we had solved them, that we're not always going to get it 100% right 100% of the time. Now, how we, address those problems, how we build processes, how we improve systems, how we address systemic challenges is by putting forward solutions. The thing that we're talking about in resolutions coming later than this are some ideas around that. But I think also it's important to look back at what we've heard from our school committee and school administration, what we've heard from this council, when it comes to the budget and the funding of our schools, when it comes to the resources that we need, when it comes to the resources that we need in this moment, when we know, hey, there was violence at Medford High School when I was there. There was violence at Medford High School 30 years ago. And we can talk about certain numbers. The one number that hasn't been talked about any of this is actually looking at the trends and data on this issue. But the one thing we do know is whether it's Medford or a neighboring community or every community in Massachusetts or every community in this country is that student supports are deeply needed. That mental health is a serious issue. That conflict resolution and addressing problems in a peaceful manner is a huge problem. And that quite frankly, before these things got worse, it was a problem. It's an even worse problem now. Students are walking out because they recognize it. Students are crying out because they know that they need help or they know someone who needs help. It's a question of resources. The first thing I thought about when I ran for office was the funding for our schools three years ago, that was before the pandemic. It was my first concern in June when we were talking about the fiscal 23 budget and the $2.8 million that got cut from our schools at the last minute. And two weeks ago, it was again, where I was focusing my energy and efforts in a resolution that passed this council about funding and asking what are the supports? What are the funding that's needed? Another thing that needs resources and funding. We were just talking about it for municipal vulnerability plan. We were just talking about it. When we talk about this whole city, schools and city side, communications and engagement, the city doesn't invest its budgetary resources in that issue. So we have, you know, people scrambling to put something together to get it out when there's an emergency situation. We have in a million other situations insufficient resources for communication and engagement. So all of these things, no one is happy here. We've all identified problems that we want to solve. We're starting to talk about solutions. The big elephant in the room solution that we don't want to zone in on is that we don't have the resources to address the scope of the problems that we have. And until we are willing to admit that, and engage in a good faith discussion about what is the true scope of resources that we need to invest in our schools and in our community to address the sheer scale of the problems that we have. We're not going to unify or come together or solve these issues. And they are of a scope and scale we could not have imagined four years ago. So that's the crux of this whole question. We come together in government to pool our resources to address our collective problems. That is what we do more than anything else. And we've clearly identified a collective problem that needs resources and the resources, we are literally unable to put those resources on the table. Now, I think there are things that we can do and should do. and try to do in the short-term, medium, and long-term with what we have to better target what we have and do the best that we can do with what we have, but that's not going to be enough. The other two things I want to talk about here are that we are once again not going to get unified and be on the same page and be able to move forward collectively unless we are moving on a single set of facts. about who has the authority to do what, who has the power to do what, and who sets the rules about what. The state and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education set a number of rules about a lot of the things that we're talking about tonight, or have talked about in previous meetings. The state defines the scope of the authority of the school committee and the city council. The one place where we truly do have authority is on this fundamental core question of funding and the budget. That is where we can partner. And I know that there's a resolution from Councilor Scarpelli on that question and a resolution from Councilor Collins and I on that question, because that is where we can most and best engage in this discussion. And I don't say that to limit that there may be other things, but that is where our authority and power lies. And the last thing I'm going to say, people aren't going to be happy about it, you know, I'm not happy about everything that everyone else has said, so I'm just going to go ahead and say it. I don't know what veiled accusations about national organizations are going to get us anywhere. When we have information that is not correct out there about why people are making decisions that they're making or what decisions have been made or the policies and rules that actually exist and are actually being followed or should be being followed, we're never going to get on the same enough page to move forward in a collective way and really talk about having the community and collaborative conversations that we need to have. So, you know, I know that that's, that's the nicest way that I can think of to say what I really want to say here. But when we talk about unity, we can't then have the next sentence be something that divides. And I think, again, The thing that we can unify around here, maybe it's not the most heartwarming thing to unify around here is that nobody is happy. There are problems and we need to identify and move forward on solutions to those problems. And I think if we can do that and accept a single set of facts about what is truly going on, then we are laying the foundation to have the substantive conversations and make the real actions that we need so that kids in our schools feel safe. I know what it was like to not feel safe. I stayed home for a whole week from school because I didn't want to get on the bus because I was attacked when I was in middle school, okay? And I'm not even equating that to what happened on Monday or what happened to other people, right? I experienced that in my family. So we can say that there's a monopoly on the feelings here, but we know what we know and we know that what we have to put forward is not sufficient at this moment to address the scope of the challenge that we face. And I think the best thing that we can do is to look at the resolutions before us that are solutions focused and ask the people most affected, the students and teachers on the ground to work with the school committee and the mayor and the school administration and the city council to figure out what we can do in the short term to address funding and what we can do in the long term to make a systemic solution and a systemic approach to make sure that we're addressing this issue in two weeks, in two months, in two years, and in two decades, because we heard last night that there were people who felt that 30 years ago to today, things hadn't been fixed. That's all I wanna say on this. Beyond that, I'm not gonna speak to this paper anymore. I'll speak to the solutions focused resolutions that we have next, and I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: I'll be short. The game is rigged. We can try to change our game plan as much as we want, but when we're talking about city departments and city budgets that in real inflation adjusted dollar terms have less money now than they did in 1980, the game is rigged. So that's the first thing. I'm not disputing that there are things we could do immediately to bring people together and try to find solutions. I think that's exactly what we have on here tonight. There are things we could do with short money that could make a big impact and make people feel safer. And I think that's what we're asking for. But I think the idea that we can fix this whole problem or that the notion of putting more resources, this is just throwing money at the problem, that we can address a problem that has been persistent, that is growing in scale, that is not just unique to Medford, even though we could do what we can in Medford to find unique solutions with what we have through reallocation and additional resources, it's promising something that's unachievable. So I agree, let's do what we can now with short money or no money at all to make people feel safer in the schools. I completely understand and respect that. And I think we have to do that. But if we're not, again, if we're not thinking about this in a bigger terms of, you know, when we talk about resources, yeah, make people feel safer, I would bet to have some additional resources around the hallways and the bathrooms, because that's clearly been a problem. It was a problem that came up before what happened yesterday. Obviously it was a problem yesterday. That's something that'll make people feel safer. And we can figure out ways to target resources to do that. But when we talk about students' mental health and the mental health crisis and the fact that we need dozens of more Councilors at our school, or we need to bring back maybe an assistant principal at the high school, or we have to look at the funding cuts that were made in 2020 or 2023, those are big ticket items that, you know, if we just want to say we'll never get there, then, All we're going to do is the short money things that make people feel a little bit safer until they don't work anymore or until more kids are facing issues with mental health and conflict resolution. I'm going to stop there because I don't think it's mutually exclusive. I'm not saying we can only do one piece of it and not the other. And I don't think anyone else is saying the other way around, but if we don't have that conversation and admit that we're not going to be operating on a set of facts and under the urgency that we need to be operating under to bring the solutions to bear that we obviously all agree need to be brought to bear.
[Zac Bears]: Another challenge that didn't exist 12 years ago.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Yeah. I also want to thank you for coming out to everyone who spoke tonight. Ms. Ripley, you were really good. And the students who spoke last night as well, I think that that takes a lot of courage because you, you're going back there and you know what it's like. And I just want to say too, to President Morell's point, you know, I graduated 2011 from Medford High School, my sister 2016, and there were clicks and bullying and police reports and, you know, issues that we faced in our time at Medford High School. I think, again, there's not much more I can add. People have been experiencing this. It's clearly worse now than it's ever been before. And I think we've talked about a lot of the reasons that that's true. And this council and the school committee, and I think everyone involved is, you know, Ms. Ripley talked about resources, seeing every day the teachers and staff not having the resources that they're asking for to help address these problems. And I think, again, that's something that for me personally, I think is, What I'm going to keep hammering on is trying to get more resources into the building. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. The idea that we shouldn't contextualize an issue and analyze it to find solutions. I mean, yeah, what happened in the past is relevant. You're doing it right now. So I just want to make that point.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Mr. South. I appreciate you acknowledging the national scope of the issue and the need for significant funding, considering the massive underfunding of our city government. I just had one question, which is, who wrote this document?
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead, name and address for the record, Andrew.
[Zac Bears]: Let's keep it on topic.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Andrew. Thank you, Mr. Orlando. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: safety, social, emotional health, and support.
[Zac Bears]: Completely out of context statement.
[Zac Bears]: I just said it's completely out of context, for your political ends.
[Zac Bears]: It's incredibly easy for people to take their own politics and map them onto any situation they want and then use it to justify or blame people for results.
[Zac Bears]: When people say that out of context and repeat it and repeat it over again to rile people up.
[Zac Bears]: Watch the video you can see for yourself.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to read papers 22-614-2261. We have to dispose, sorry, we just have to dispose of this paper. It's part of the motion. Okay. Motion to read 22-614-615, 616, 617, and 618. Merge them all together and a motion to approve.
[Zac Bears]: I'll do.
[Zac Bears]: and I do ask that you read them.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to table until our next meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Actually, sorry, if I may, is there Mo Lewis on Zoom?
[Zac Bears]: I don't want to cut you. If you've been here all night, Moe, I don't want to cut you out.
[Zac Bears]: I will table the next meeting. I'll follow up with him.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, I would move to refer the original paper and the amendments to the Subcommittee on Rules and Ordinances.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: And correct me if I'm wrong, this is Route 16 eastbound between Main Street and Harvard Avenue. If we could just amend it to reflect Route 16 eastbound between Main Street and the intersection with Harvard. I don't know if it has an official name. Harvard Street. It is Route 16.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to table papers 22610, 22611, and 22612.
[Zac Bears]: You know, it's like government by committee doesn't work. I mean, is that, are we considering that an official communication that our vote is not required? Because we did ask a question as to whether our voters were part of it.
[Zac Bears]: So not really an answer, just yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion is to suspend the rules to take papers 22-584, 22-609, 22-603, and 22-604. 5-8-4, 6-0-9, sorry. 6-0-3, 6-0-4. 6-0-3, 6-0-4, and 6-0-9, correct? And 5-8-4. And 5-8-4, okay. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Motion for a brief summary.
[Zac Bears]: My intention was to 609 next that's the eviction license.
[Zac Bears]: Congratulations. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Penny, for reaching out to me to make this presentation. I think it's really important for us to hear and for anyone who's in the community to hear the great work that we're doing. I think this is really showing how we're bringing together so much of the response work and whether we're talking about climate or substance use disorder or food insecurity or housing insecurity or all the other issues that we know so many people in our community are facing, but also just bringing the community together in general and building a more resilient community. I mean, I think something that we have been talking about and will continue to be talking about is social emotional support for young people in our community and also making sure that seniors have connection to the resources that they need in our community. And I just think that this is really showing that there's an intentional approach and that the staff on the ground are really doing amazing work. not just in bringing in funding so that we can do this, which I know is really tough. And one of the reasons that it hadn't been done before is we have huge budgetary problems. So I'm glad that there's a pool of money that you're able to access for this, but also how we can really embed it throughout all of our public institutions from our public schools to our city departments to our nonprofit organizations going forward. It's really impressive work, really thankful to you and everyone who's been working on it and obviously continue to love to support and help out. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And I also do recognize that Councilor Knight did submit an amendment to this paper requesting that the documents be presented to the Council in advance of a presentation and that the presentation be tabled to the next regularly scheduled meeting. So I don't know what you have tonight for us, Director Dickinson. I'd be happy to hear kind of a short update, but I do agree that in order for us to be fully prepared for a budget presentation and financial update, having the documents in advance would be helpful. I don't want to speak for Councilor Knight beyond that, but I do understand that concern. So, you know, I'll just put that out there.
[Zac Bears]: They're never presented to us, Bob.
[Zac Bears]: 2020 to the present is what we request.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information. Thank you, Madam President. If we could, I think it sounds like we should just get on paper right now what we're asking for.
[Zac Bears]: It's not exclusive to the finance department, Bob. It's almost, unless we make the outreach directly, every paper that we submit to the mayor's office to almost any department, we're not getting the response in a timely manner or a complete manner. So I just want to put that out there and I'm not going to ask you to say that, I'll say it. The first thing I want to just get on, so yes, I think the first thing we'd really like to see would be the AP warrants from January, 2020 to present. And I know that's probably a pretty big file, but I think we'd all like to see it electronically and also to be sent to the clerk to be delivered to us.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Right. I mean, the other thing we can send you is Aleesha Nunley Benjamin did provide us with copies of what we call warrant articles. And we can provide you an example of that so that you can see what those reports were like. And then the two things that you said that you have with you tonight, you said you had a quarter one
[Zac Bears]: And then the other thing that you said is you have revenue projections.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I don't mean this to be exhaustive. I'm sure other Councilors are going to have other items, but basically what would be also very helpful is if you could take anything, anything that we request tonight, send them to us in a digital format and the clerk in a digital format, he can provide it to us in a print format. And then if we can have that, you know, maybe by the end of this week, um, then we could have a full presentation from you in January, as Councilor Knight had requested, where we've had time to review the documents in advance to ask, have our questions ready.
[Zac Bears]: Just amend the motion to request that the finance director submit to the clerk and the Council in digital format, the documents requested and documents that we listed out earlier. And I'll leave it at that. But I do think we should try to schedule this early in January and try to figure
[Zac Bears]: There's disagreements about this. I don't think there's any single person. And if there is, they got to get checked out who was happy about what happened yesterday. I think everyone agrees and agreed six months ago, or two months ago, or two days ago, that there are things that need to be improved, that there are problems that need to be solved, that we're not always, and even if we had solved them, that we're not always going to get it 100% right 100% of the time. Now, how we address those problems, how we build processes, how we improve systems, how we address systemic challenges, is by putting forward solutions. The thing that we're talking about in resolutions coming later than this are some ideas around that. But I think also it's important to look back at what we've heard from our school committee and school administration, what we've heard from this council, when it comes to the budget and the funding of our schools, when it comes to the resources that we need, when it comes to the resources that we need in this moment, when we know, hey, there was violence at Medford High School when I was there. There was violence at Medford High School 30 years ago. And we can talk about certain numbers. The one number that hasn't been talked about any of this is actually looking at the trends and data on this issue. But the one thing we do know is whether it's Medford or a neighboring community or every community in Massachusetts or every community in this country is that student supports are deeply needed. That mental health is a serious issue. That conflict resolution and addressing problems in a peaceful manner is a huge problem. And that quite frankly, Before these things got worse, it was a problem. It's an even worse problem now. Students are walking out because they recognize it. Students are crying out because they know that they need help or they know someone who needs help. It's a question of resources. The first thing I thought about when I ran for office was the funding for our schools three years ago, that was before the pandemic. It was my first concern in June when we were talking about the fiscal 23 budget and the $2.8 million that got cut from our schools at the last minute. two weeks ago, it was again, where I was focusing my energy and efforts in a resolution that passed this council about funding and asking what are the supports? What are the funding that's needed? Another thing that needs resources and funding, we were just talking about it for municipal vulnerability plan. We're just talking about it. When we talk about this whole city, schools and city side communications and engagement, the city doesn't invest its budgetary resources in that issue. So we have you know, people scrambling to put something together to get it out when there's an emergency situation. We have in a million other situations insufficient resources for communication and engagement. So all of these things, no one is happy here. We've all identified problems that we want to solve. We're starting to talk about solutions. The big elephant in the room solution that we don't want to zone in on is that we don't have the resources to address the scope of the problems that we have. And until we are willing to admit that and engage in a good faith discussion about what is the true scope of resources that we need to invest in our schools and in our community to address the sheer scale of the problems that we have, we're not going to unify or come together or solve these issues. And they are of a scope and scale we could not have imagined four years ago. So that's the crux of this whole question. We come together in government to pool our resources to address our collective problems. That is what we do more than anything else. And we've clearly identified a collective problem that needs resources and the resources, we are literally unable to put those resources on the table. Now, I think there are things that we can do and should do and try to do in the short term, medium and long term with what we have to better target what we have and do the best that we can do with what we have, but that's not going to be enough. The other two things I want to talk about here are that we are once again, not going to get unified and be on the same page and be able to move forward collectively, unless we are moving on a single set of facts about who has the authority to do what, who has the power to do what, and who sets the rules about what. The state and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education set a number of rules about a lot of the things that we're talking about tonight, or have talked about in previous meetings. The state defines the scope. of the authority of the school committee and the city council. The one place where we truly do have authority is on this fundamental core question of funding and the budget. That is where we can partner. And I know that there's a resolution from Councilor Scarpelli on that question and a resolution from Councilor Collins and I on that question, because that is where we can most and best engage in this discussion. And I don't say that to limit that there may be other things, but that is where our authority and power lies. And the last thing I'm gonna say, people aren't gonna be happy about it, and I'm not happy about everything that everyone else has said, so I'm just gonna go ahead and say it. I don't know what veiled accusations about national organizations are going to get us anywhere. When we have information that is not correct out there about why people are making decisions that they're making, or what decisions have been made, the policies and rules that actually exist and are actually being followed or should be being followed, we're never gonna get on the same enough page to move forward in a collective way and really talk about having the community and collaborative conversations that we need to have. So, you know, I know that that's the nicest way that I can think of to say what I really wanna say here. But when we talk about unity, we can't then have the next sentence be something that divides. And I think, again, the thing that we can unify around here, maybe it's not the most heartwarming thing to unify around here, is that nobody is happy, there are problems, and we need to identify and move forward on solutions to those problems. And I think if we can do that and accept a single set of facts about what is truly going on, then we are laying the foundation to have the substantive conversations and make the real actions that we need so that kids in our schools feel safe. I know what it was like to not feel safe. I stayed home for a whole week from school because I didn't want to get on the bus because I was attacked when I was in middle school, okay? And I'm not even equating that to what happened on Monday or what happened to other people, right? I experienced that in my family. So we can say that there's a monopoly on the feelings here, but we know what we know and we know that what we have to put forward is not sufficient at this moment to address the scope of the challenge that we face. And I think the best thing that we can do is to look at the resolutions before us that are solutions focused and ask the people most affected the students and teachers on the ground to work with the school committee and the mayor and the school administration and the city council to figure out what we can do in the short term to address funding and what we can do in the long term to make a systemic solution and a systemic approach to make sure that we're addressing this issue in two weeks, in two months, in two years, and in two decades, because we heard last night that there were people who felt that 30 years ago to today, things hadn't been fixed. So that's all I wanna say on this. Beyond that, I'm not gonna speak to this paper anymore. I'll speak to the solutions-focused resolutions that we have next, and I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: I'll be short, the game is rigged. We can try to change our game plan as much as we want. But when we're talking about city departments and city budgets that in real inflation adjusted dollar terms have less money now than they did in 1980, the game is rigged. So that's the first thing. I'm not disputing that there are things we could do immediately to bring people together and try to find solutions. I think that's exactly what we have on here tonight. There are things we could do with short money that could make a big impact and make people feel safer. And I think that's what we're asking for. But I think the idea that we can fix this whole problem, or that the notion of putting more resources, this is just throwing money at the problem, that we can address a problem that has been persistent, that is growing in scale, that is not just unique to Medford, even though we could do what we can in Medford to find unique solutions with what we have through reallocation and additional resources. it's promising something that's unachievable. So I agree, let's do what we can now with short money or no money at all to make people feel safer in the schools. I completely understand and respect that. And I think we have to do that. But if we're not, again, if we're not thinking about this in a bigger terms of, you know, when we talk about resources, yeah, make people feel safer, I would bet to have some additional resources around the hallways and the bathrooms, because that's clearly been a problem. It was a problem that came up before what happened yesterday. Obviously it was a problem yesterday. That's something that'll make people feel safer. And we can figure out ways to target resources to do that. But when we talk about students' mental health and the mental health crisis and the fact that we need dozens of more Councilors at our school, or we need to bring back maybe an assistant principal at the high school, or we have to look at the funding cuts that were made in 2020, or 2023. Those are big ticket items that, you know, if we just want to say we'll never get there, then all we're going to do is the short money things that make people feel a little bit safer until they don't work anymore, or until more kids are facing issues with mental health and conflict resolution. I'm going to stop there, because I don't think it's mutually exclusive. I'm not saying we can only do one piece of it and not the other and I don't think anyone else is saying the other way around. If we don't have that conversation and admit that, we're not going to be operating on a set of facts and under the urgency that we need to be operating under to bring the solutions to bear that we obviously all agree need to be brought to bear.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Yeah. I also want to want to thank you for coming out to everyone who spoke tonight. Ms. Ripley, you were really good. And the students who spoke last night as well, I think that that takes a lot of courage because you're going back there and you know what it's like. And I just want to say to President Morell's point, I graduated 2011 from Medford High School, my sister 2016. And there were clicks and bullying and police reports and issues that we faced in our time at Medford High School. I think, again, there's not much more I can add. People have been experiencing this. It's clearly worse now than it's ever been before. And I think we've talked about a lot of the reasons that that's true. And this council and the school committee, and I think everyone involved is, you know, Mr. Ripley talked about resources, seeing every day the teachers and staff not having the resources that they're asking for to help address these problems. And I think, again, that's something that for me personally, I think is, What I'm going to keep hammering on is trying to get more resources into the building. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. The idea that we shouldn't contextualize an issue and analyze it to find solutions. I mean, yeah, what happened in the past is relevant. You're doing it right now. So I just want to make that point.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Mr. South. I appreciate acknowledging the national scope of the issue and the need for significant funding considering the massive underfunding of our city government. I just had one question, which is who wrote this document?
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead and name and address for the record, Andrew.
[Zac Bears]: Let's keep it on topic.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Andrew. Thank you, Mr. Orlando. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: safety, social, emotional health and support. Yeah, no, I understand all that.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it is. I just said you're completely out of context for your political ends. Oh, okay. It's incredibly easy for people to take their own politics and map them onto any situation they want and then use it to justify or blame people for results.
[Zac Bears]: to rile people up. What's out of context?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to read papers 22-614-2261. We have to dispose, sorry, we just have to dispose of this paper. It's part of the motion. Okay. Motion to read 22-614-615-616-617 and 618. Merge them all together and a motion to approve. Great idea, second that.
[Zac Bears]: We all do.
[Zac Bears]: and I do ask that you read them.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to table until our next meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Actually, sorry, if I may, is there Mo Lewis on Zoom?
[Zac Bears]: I will table the next meeting. I'll follow up with him.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, I would move to refer the original paper and the amendments to the Subcommittee on Rules and Ordinances.
[Zac Bears]: Correct me if I'm wrong, this is route 16 eastbound between Main Street and Harvard. If we could just amend it to reflect route 16 eastbound between Main Street and the intersection with Harvard. I don't know if it has an official name. Harvard Street. It is route 16. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to table papers 22610, 22611 and 22612.
[Zac Bears]: It's like government by committee doesn't work. I mean, is that, are we considering that an official communication that our vote is not required? because we did ask a question as to whether our voters.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, super direct. So I'm not really an answer.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Castagnetti, I personally think that this should be an option that we consider when we look at the tax structure in the city. I don't agree with Councilor Knight in the sense that the numbers that were presented by Assessor Bordeaux where that yes, there are a number of people, a number of households. If you could shut off your microphone just for a moment, there's an echo.
[Zac Bears]: There certainly are a number of people who would pay more if we were to implement a residential exemption, but that number was lower than the number of people who would benefit. The conversation of course, is that there are people who would benefit and people who would pay. And that's an important conversation to have obviously, and a difficult decision to make. It's my personal belief that asking owners of high value homes to pay more and owners of lower value homes to pay less may well be a good policy decision for the city to make. It's the one way that we can adjust our currently flat property tax rate to potentially add some fairness. However, the main concern that the assessor brought up was that we would need a lot of time to implement this. And we hadn't had the discussions in time to implement it. So I certainly think it should be a piece of the puzzle going forward. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate Mr. Castanets selfless advocacy. So what appreciate your selfless advocacy I mean, The median average median home value in the city is below $707,000. More people would benefit than would pay.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, I mean, I tend to agree that we should be doing this the best way possible. I just have two clarifying questions. It sounds like what you're saying, Owen, is that this is the situation for the winter. The idea is that what the current visible, what looks like a visible seam will wear away in the winter and become a flat.
[Zac Bears]: And if it doesn't, that we will likely not accept it in a condition if it does not.
[Zac Bears]: Right, but let's say that there, if it doesn't hold, you said if it doesn't hold, we'll know by April.
[Zac Bears]: And if it doesn't hold, then you have to redo it. Then they have to redo it. All right. Well, I think that's important to clarify and put out there. So we have not accepted it. We're going to go through the winter. If it doesn't hold, then it will be redone.
[Zac Bears]: All right. And the second thing is I want to just clarify and put out there is essentially the conditions that we're putting on the construction companies, you're saying that's coming from the traffic sergeants at the police department?
[Zac Bears]: All right. And is that a mutual discussion between your office and the traffic sergeant?
[Zac Bears]: Well, it just sounds to me like, you know, we're trying to balance interests here. And I completely respect the interest of safety and understand there's a high school there.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I'm just saying it sounds like in terms of the balancing of interests in the situation, that we are making a decision to potentially do work in a way that would not be the preferred way to do the work, or there may be a way to do the work differently.
[Zac Bears]: I think what we're dancing around here is that we could have a discussion in the city to have authorized this work to occur in a different way at a different time, and it may have had a different result. Right, and I think it's important that we have that discussion and not just defer 100% entirely to say, you know, I'm sure that the minds in the city and the people that we pay salaries, professional salaries to in the city and the police department, engineering division and anywhere else, plus the people from Eversource and the contractor could have sat down and said, here's a way that we can make a plan where we do close the street for a certain period of time and do this this way. It doesn't sound like out of the bounds of what we could be able to accomplish here, and I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but those are the kinds of discussions and collaborative approaches I think we need.
[Zac Bears]: Right, and I agree with that. And I think that's the other thing, right? If we're going to have the conversation and discuss the competing interests, Before the project comes, we say, we're doing it this way. This is the result we're expecting. The competing interests worked out this way, and this is why the decision was made. And then we're not coming here after the fact and saying, we don't like the quality of the work, or we don't understand the quality of the work, or we're concerned that it's gonna break down, which is what I'm hearing from experts that Councilor Scarpelli went out with and Councilor Caraviello, quite frankly. I've driven down the road and I didn't find it sufficient. I've driven down a lot of repaved roads and it didn't seem like the best version of that that I've ever driven down. We had the issue on Mystic Avenue, which is the same project and the same contractor. So, you know, again, you are one part of a puzzle that makes this decision and I understand that. But as we discuss it, you know, having all those minds meet and say, maybe the competing interests, because this is a once in a generation opportunity to repave a major thoroughfare without cost to the city, maybe it's worth the interest of shutting down that road at a certain time or doing some work at night or doing something differently than we would for a smaller project with less impact. So that's all I'm really trying to say. And I think that that kind of approach is what we should take. So I'm not trying to put blame on the traffic sergeants or blame on you or blame anybody other than to say, I think that if we had come together and had the minds meet on this and said it's the priority that we do it this way instead of this way, this wouldn't be a conversation that we're having. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and just to be clear, that wasn't my implication. I'm saying that all parties involved could have come together and made a different solution, right? I understand. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, and I'll be quick because I don't want to be duplicative because I have a feeling Tom's going to say pretty much what I'm about to say. But I did put a resolution on this agenda earlier this year, after conversations with our ACO Pat Hogan about the fact that we don't have enough resources right now on animal control issues and on unleashed dogs at the Brooks Estate, which I'm guessing that's what we're going to hear there. I'm a member of the Brooks Estate board. You know, so just want to put that out there it is something that we put on the agenda and said, you know, maybe we could consider something like this an ordinance change if we're also talking about resources going towards it but a survey and no resources just going to leave our staff who are already overstretched and even worse position. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And again, you know, not looking for any sort of special credit here. But oftentimes, especially over the past year, you know, I've been coming in here early and putting the chairs back in order and making sure that there's room for people to sit and Larry's been helping me out the clerks can help me out. And you know it looks great in here without every voting machine in the city in the room, and every chair and table in the city in the room, but I wish that that level of respect and consideration was given for when we or the school committee or any board and commission does the business of the city in this room, week in and week out and not just when the mayor wants to throw a party. That's, you know, it just is, I'm glad that there's been some improvements made, but, you know, this is, I agree with Councilor Scarpelli, this is not a closet. And I think this also goes back to some of the issues where, you know, storage rooms in this city hall have not been kept in the condition that they need to be kept in to store things. And, you know, that wasn't addressed promptly either. So I just hope this room doesn't fill up again with stuff.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And I completely support the spirit of this. And it's more for me, how do we make it actionable? Because I think we share all the frustration with KP law and not having a solicitor, not having an assistant solicitor. And, you know, some of us went to some pretty extreme lengths in June to get that back. I think as we all remember being here at one in the morning when it was finally resolved. And it was, you know, that's what it takes right now in Medford to get an answer is to be sitting here at one in the morning discussing something that nobody wants to do. However, you know, we have a December meeting scheduled plan we do have the ongoing BJ's lawsuit and I'm just trying to understand the scope here right like, you know, I know that. The President Morell has been working closely with with the administration and quite frankly with KP law specific lawyer from KP law around BJ's and that's coming up in January. And I don't want to see us sitting without a representative there. So, you know, my suggestion would be to twofold because again, I completely agree that this is an unacceptable situation. And we've seen what's happened in previous situations where legal representation wasn't here. at that time because we only had one solicitor and she was deeply overworked and wasn't able to attend our meetings because of all the legal issues that were coming from the administration. What happens sometimes when we get into that situation? Could we amend this that we request that finance director Dickinson appear at our December 20th meeting with the, and basically present three things. One, the report the quarter report that we had requested and we're told we were going to get in mid-November. Two, that the warrant articles finally be placed on our agenda as we requested and that Director Dickinson said that he could make that possible. And three, and this is new so I'll try to say it slowly so the clerk can get it down, the third piece would be that we get a amount expended on legal services in fiscal year 22, and the amount expended on legal services so far in fiscal 23. Because I know for a fact in fiscal 23, that number is going to be basically all KP law. And then we'll know how much we're actually spending on KP law. And after that point, if we don't get that presentation and those answers at that meeting, I would support something to the effect of stop all requests except essential urgent legal work. That would be my other amendment that we... I would support that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And again, appreciate it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Something that we've done since the beginning of this term and towards the end of last term was working as a council to improve the governance of our elections. And one way that we did that was by adopting modern provision of mass general law to move us to an elections commission model. And that new commission was appointed and then confirmed by this council in the spring of this year. I will add that then the mayor later decided after the September primary to make a staffing change and change who was in charge of the elections department So essentially, I just want to point that out because the department has gone through an entire change of both governance and lead staffing within one year. The September primary, which, as we know, had some very close election results, went off seemingly without a hitch. However, there in the November election, you know, there were a number of issues that were reported to me, and that I saw directly around some incomplete information being released on election night, you know, where the early votes and the mail votes were not released on election night. So there was some confusion as to what the what the results are. Luckily, there were no close local elections. But I'm sure if there had been that there would have been a significant outcry regarding the fact that the results that were unofficial, yes, but released on election night anyway, were not entirely complete. I know that at my polling location and at a number of other polling locations that poll workers who I spoke to had some concerns about understaffing and difficulty getting poll workers. And I also know for a fact after the election, I've heard from a number of poll workers that they've not been paid completely for the hours that they've been worked. And that's still true, at least as of later at the end of last week. So, you know, those are some significant issues. You know, I have no doubt in the confidence of the actual results of the election, but I think procedurally and engagement wise, we need to hear from our elections manager and our new elections commission. How are they planning to improve the process around the election going forward? We're going into a municipal election cycle where we're not gonna have support from the secretary of state's office that we have in an even year election that's a state election and a number of other things, you know, I do believe that there's a shared commitment, certainly within this council, to make improvements. That's what we've been focusing on. How can we make sure that this department has the resources and the governance structure it needs to succeed? And I think providing us with a report and having a discussion with us about how are we gonna make sure that all of the different pieces, big and small, of the election process go off smoothly, and that the elections department can do that outreach to make sure that we are increasing voter turnout as much as we can is incredibly important. So that's the intent of this resolution, and I ask my colleagues for their support.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And I think this and many other issues go right back to what we were talking about with Eversource and Mr. Wartella, which is, you know, what has the parking department been tasked to do and who is leading the implementation of a plan and making sure that there is communication going on and constituent service work going on so that the outreach is happening and that there's capacity to do that. And I think what's clear here is that the parking department was, you know, we haven't even gotten to raising fees and fines yet that's not even on the table. We're just talking about, you know, some adjustments to permitting some, some adjustments to increase enforcement some changes to the infrastructural system. We haven't really gotten to fundamentally deep changes on a city wide basis around parking enforcement right now I think the parking department has been given, in many ways, not the guidance and planning and resources that they've needed to be successful. And I don't think they've been told, here are the communications outlets. It's been start from scratch. It's start from scratch every time. You have a planning department with its own email list, a rec department with its own email list, a health department with its own email list, a mayor with their own email list, and none of it is communicating with each other. You don't have an integrated communications infrastructure to support our departments, to support the idea of reaching out to folks in different communities around a whole host of issues. You know, I think that's really where this needs to come in with a collaborative approach to bring all hands together and say, who in this city is, you know, working in constituent services and what support do they need on a citywide basis and what citywide infrastructure are we doing to make sure that they can do outreach. Same goes for communications. And I think also goes for decision making and planning around projects like the meter project or decision about how we're gonna, you know, what is our city policy around the Eversource paving? All of these issues are interconnected. And I think that, you know, these are good resolutions. I certainly support these policies, but even information sessions, one off from the police department or one off from the parking department, I think they'll make some impact on those specific areas, but they will not get to the systemic issue that we don't have the proper infrastructure around communications and constituent services, and that the leadership approach around collaboration is not there to bring the different parts of city government together to bring to bear the best results for our residents. So thank you to my colleagues for putting this forward, and I really hope that we see a bigger and broader and systemic approach from the city administration. Otherwise, we're gonna keep coming back here time after time again on issue after issue. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: First thing I want to say is, and I've exchanged some private conversation is that I apologize for not speaking up last week. could give a million excuse. I did have the flu and we're on zoom and whatever, but I should have said something because I can't imagine how you both feel and what you've been going through. Councilor Scott probably talks about his son. I was at Medford high school 11 years ago. My sister was there six years ago. We've dealt with some issues, not what you've dealt with lesser than that. And I know how much it affected our family. So I just want to say that to you directly that I wish I'd said something last week. And that's why I'm saying something this week. And I hope that we can have more conversations. so that I can do what I can to help. Something that really stuck with me from what you said is that being reactive puts people at risk. Being proactive means that we can get ahead of things and stop things from happening before they ever become a problem. Um, something that I think, uh, you know, as part of this conversation, um, around our schools and when, you know, hear from parents, hear from you, hear from others about, uh, There's a lot of behavioral issues. People are, there's a flood of issues. People can't manage it. It's, it's, it's so much that the resources aren't there to manage it. Something that we had a conversation about, um, one conversation about, I don't know, hundreds of hours of conversations about in June was the budget of our school system and the fact that two days into June, the mayor cut $2.8 million in school funding this year that the schools were expecting, that they wanted for mental health, student behavior, support, and I would guess in some elements of that, safety in the schools, right? And the resources that we need for that. That was one of my biggest concerns when I made the budget presentation, when we advocated and fought for funding to be restored to the schools so that schools have the resources that they need to succeed. We restored some funding, I think a few hundred thousand, but not 2.8 million. We didn't restore the resources and support that our schools asked for and that they expected to be able to, I think, hopefully deal with some of these issues. Now, I also wanna say that I certainly think there's I'm not saying it's all just a question of resources. I think better decisions and better processes and better communication need to be a part of this, too. Um, now I'm going to say something that I don't think everyone's going to agree with here. Which is that this proposal specifically we've had a lot of conversations about. What is in the school committees purview? What is in the city council's purview? We've had a lot of conversations about the city charter. and Massachusetts General Law. And we could pass this thing word for word right now, and I guarantee you that whether it's the school lawyer or the school committee itself or somebody else, they're going to come and say, this is unenforceable. We're not going to follow any of this. We're not going to do any of this. That's what they're going to say. If you look at Mass General Law, the authority over the schools, over school governance, it falls to the school committee. If you look at the city charter, the city council can't pass an ordinance on this. Some of this I think falls into passing rules for the school committee. I mean, and I can only imagine how this body would react if the school committee passed a resolution saying the city council must do this and must meet this way and must do that. Well, I think we'd have to discuss the specifics of that, but I'm pretty sure this council didn't agree to it and didn't implement it. And I think that's the response that we're gonna expect here. So, again, on the on the larger concerns about this issue and getting resources to where they need to be. I propose a B paper tonight, which would be be it resolved by the Medford City Council that Mayor Lungo-Koehn city staff, public schools administration, and the school committee work to send the city council a supplemental appropriation as soon as possible to restore as much of the $2.8 million in funding that was cut from the fiscal 23 budget. with a specific focus on surging resources to safety and student supports to address ongoing issues regarding student behavior, mental and physical health, and the safety of everyone in our public schools. And I think that that is something that is clearly within our authority, within our budgetary scope, and something that would put resources to bear immediately around the issues that we've been discussing, and not something that I think will end up getting us bogged down in a whether we want to say it or not, political and legal morass that won't actually bring results and proactive action on this issue. So again, I'm open to more discussion around this. I agree with where this stems from and wanting to address problems. But I think we know what kind of Pandora's box we're opening going down this road. And I don't think it's going to give us the results that we all want to see here. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. You know, again, I think we've had a lot of conversations and when we wanna talk about violence and resources and administrative work and making sure that our schools are safe, that's a conversation that we can have and that in our authority, that our budget authority speaks to that. When we start bringing in things that happened two years ago, and a whole slew of issues, and there has been an election between some of them and now, where this school committee was elected, then we're making a political point. We're making a political argument. We're not talking about what is within our authority that we can be proactive to address the issues of violence and safety in our schools. This council has an open forum. We're about to have an open forum. We put it in our rules to have an open forum. That's our values. That's what we decided because that's within our scope and our authority. So we offer that. Teachers didn't vote no confidence in us. And I know for a fact that that's because of what we've done and what we've said and what we've tried to do. Now, if we pass an ordinance, we have the authority to negotiate the teacher's contract. You know, we don't, we couldn't put that ordinance forward, we couldn't pass it and it wouldn't be enforceable. And it would be leading us down a road to say, we have a solution that's gonna end up crumbling before us. Now, I understand that we wanna take action and do something, but I don't wanna put forward the solutions that aren't gonna get the result. That's my whole thing here. That's what I think this is gonna do. At the end of the day, I read this and I say, it's just not gonna, it's gonna crumble before us. So we can put it forward and get into a giant argument and have the school committee sending back resolutions telling us to shut up and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And then in three months, where are we gonna be? We're gonna have it all crumble before us. We're not gonna have more accountability. We're not gonna have a change. And we're not gonna have had the proactive discussions on the things within our authority to try to advance concrete solutions. around this issue of safety and violence, which I think we all take very seriously. So that's where I'm coming from on this. Now, if we want to have more discussions in committee about things that we can do and take action on that are within our authority that we think can encourage this, I'm open to that. But at the end of the day, we aren't the school committee. We don't set the rules of the school committee. We don't set the meetings of the school committee. We don't govern the public schools of the city. We pay them. Well, the whole city pays them. It's a system in our charter of checks and balances and a system of mass general law that has very specifically said, there's a city council that is a legislative body when it comes to city matters under our charter we approve the budget. We look at ordinances, and we look at zoning, and that under master while the school committee has complete and total governance over the Metro public schools. That's what it says. And leading people down that road otherwise on a solution that's going to crumble in front of us just isn't the approach that I want to take on it. I think we all agree on some of these specific issues around administrative competence and safety and violence and resources, and that's where I want to focus. You know, again, we're about to get in what I can remember Councilor Mark saying it and us having meetings in the last session, talking about the school committee talking about the City Council, us getting furious about the school committee saying something to Council now that I'm remembering I think Councilor Knight brought up. You don't go into the into there you don't you don't cross that line into there because all you're going to get is trouble. And that's, that's what's going to happen here.
[Zac Bears]: Hey, if this was an advisory, Councilor Knight, we asked you to hold public forums. That's a different conversation. This is an ordinance mandating it and taking away people's pay if they don't do it, and basically baiting them into having an argument with us about it. That's my how I read it. I'm sorry, but that's how I read it. If it was, it was saying we believe in the principle of a public forum and we ask wholeheartedly that the school committee hold a public forum on this issue, you know, and again, if something is on the agenda, people can speak to it. That's also just kind of how individual members of a body work. That'd be an entirely different story, but it's not. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Anne Avenue, yes. The preferred avenue, maybe not.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, I think we've had the conversation. We've decided how we want to run a public body. We have an open forum. We have a place for people to come have a conversation. Obviously, sometimes we have to say, please stick to your five minutes or stick to 90 seconds because we have a big line, but people come here and we have a public forum. And that's what we as a group have decided is how the city council should run. Now, the school committee has decided a different approach. you put something on the agenda, it takes time. It's maybe not, you know, my preferred approach necessarily, but it's what they've decided to do. And I think us going and saying, we want you to do this and we're going to enforce financial penalties on you to do what we say doesn't align with any understanding of the city charter and mass general law that I have. And I'd like to focus on different actionable solutions to try to reach the results that we're trying to achieve. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: And if I may, if there was a motion by a sponsor or a supporter of the resolution ascended to a committee to have discussions about different approaches that we could take on this that could pass legal muster, that would be a different story.
[Zac Bears]: Well, that's going to come on anyway. No, that's going to come on anyway.
[Zac Bears]: As you noted, you would write a resolution. You'd write an ordinance. We've all written ordinances to fill in the gap that they've called on. And if we want to bring in someone else, that would be fine with me.
[Zac Bears]: So it's not throwing money at a problem throwing good money after bad. They expected millions of dollars that they didn't get. because the mayor decided to cut it out of the budget for whatever reasons that she had, even though she initially had a plan to fund the whole thing. So, let me just go for this.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know. But what I'm hearing in the conversation that I had with Mrs. Branley is that people who are tasked with dealing with this are overwhelmed and they can't handle the issue and they need resources. And I think a proactive approach, and I'm not saying it's the only one, but I'm saying I had a conversation and I tried to think of something that could help, is to send resources specifically around behavior, physical safety, and violence, because that's what I'm hearing that people are overwhelmed with. We're hearing stories in the schools that they don't have the resources they need. So I said, hey, let's put A and B together. There was money that wasn't supposed to be there. We have a growing problem, and I'm hearing that the staff we're tasked with dealing with it are overwhelmed. If you believe that they have what they need and they just need to do it, that's fine. I'm hearing from parents and from the parent who spoke to me tonight, there's people who are overwhelmed, who are tasked with dealing with this and that maybe some more resources would help. That budgetary piece, that resource piece is within our authority. And I think we should ask for it. That's all I'm saying. I'm trying to think on multiple streams in the many ways that we can address this issue. And it sounds to me like getting money to our assistant principals and guidance Councilors and adjustment Councilors and people who are dealing with mental health and physical health and making sure that there's enough staff to properly monitor the bathrooms and the million other things that we've heard might help. and may stop the next one. I can't say whether if something in the past would have stopped something that happened in the past. I don't think anyone can say that, but I think we can say that resources to make sure that staff is there to address these specific issues probably would help. So that's what when I had a conversation with Someone who asked to be proactive, that was a proactive approach that I thought we could look at.
[Zac Bears]: Council Member Drew's motion, I would move to approve the B paper and send the main paper to committee of the whole.
[Zac Bears]: 22-599, petition for common victor license by Claire Shaleen. Licensing operations manager, 2902 Corporate Place, Chanhassen, Minnesota. 5517 for LTF Club Operations Company, Inc. DBA Life Cafe at 70 Station Landing, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155. I know this was in the packet. Please stop. Please stop. Please do not harass Councilors in the chamber. You may leave if you'd like. This is a convinctual, please, please. Move approval on the ham and cheese. On the convictual license by Claire Chalene, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: If we could recognize the petitioner, Claire Shaleen, is she unmuted? If you could just give us your name and address for the record and answer the question by Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And just for added edification, I can confirm with the clerk that all of the necessary paperwork has been submitted.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On Councilor Scarpelli's motion to approve, any further questions from the Council? Seconded by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favour? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Public participation. To participate remotely outside of Zoom, please email ahertabese at medford-ma.gov. Do we have any additional public participation from members of the space, in the room, or anyone raising their hand online? any further public participation. Seeing none, is there any other business to be handled tonight? Motion of Councilor Knight to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: I will do my best to facilitate.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, I'm down with the flu, but I'll do my best. 22-577 offered by Councilor Caraviello, be it so resolved that the Medford City Council commend and congratulate Margaret Maggie Giordano on the celebration of her 100th birthday. Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Garavaglia. Oh, sorry, go ahead Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to suspend the rules to take paper 22-582.
[Zac Bears]: To avoid another roll call, I just moved to spend for that one paper. So I would say that we are back to the regular quarter.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Ellen. Thanks for the presentation. Just wanted to kind of have two quick lines of questioning here. But first, I just want to also remind everybody that we had a meeting over the summer where we did go really into depth on a lot of property tax exemptions, the residential exemption with Assessor Bordeaux. So I'm not going to ask the questions that I asked at that meeting again, but that's a good meeting recording to refer back to for folks. where we did dive into that in a little more detail. Just two things, Ellen. One, on the average growth rate of assessments versus average growth rate of the average tax bill, I noticed that average assessments are going up significantly faster than the average tax bill itself. And I just wanted to confirm with you, that's attributable to Proposition 2.5, correct?
[Zac Bears]: Great. And yeah, along those lines, I just wanted to also to make a point of note for folks that the because of that the tax rate is going down again right we're dropping from, I just want to confirm we're dropping from 9.18 per thousand to 8.65 for residential Is that correct.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Ellen. And then just finally, so what we're adding here is we're adding the 2.5% minimum plus that $2.2 million in new growth, and that's what's being added to the levy.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you very much, Alan.
[Zac Bears]: Could we table for one week so it appears on the regular agenda next week?
[Zac Bears]: Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I would just add to that. Maybe we could, Councilor Scott probably is amenable. I'm in the motion to table this paper for one week and invite representatives of ever source, and the DPW to attend our next meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for co-sponsoring this resolution with me. Essentially, this is just that we should set a fee schedule for plan development district proposals, as outlined in the new zoning ordinance that we passed earlier this year. In our packets there was an attachment. Victor Schrader our economic development director who's done some review of some similar fee structures in neighboring communities. I would motion that we refer this to committee of the whole so we can have a more in depth discussion with the relevant city staff.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And I just, I believe the reason this did end up on the agenda is we received emails about these projects asking for our support for them. I was unclear as to what that entailed and kind of responded asking whether that was asking if we were going to approve these projects for appropriation or otherwise have some sort of feedback. So I think that's how they ended up on the agenda. Um, and I believe where we left the last meeting was. Um, that the chief of staff would report back to us, but then if we say voted these down, they may move forward with the projects anyway. And one of the reasons that I have some, not necessarily concerns about the substance, but concerns about process and future process actually pertains to the next two items, the technology items for IT help desk support and premium Microsoft Office 365, the backup system. Both of these seem like helpful services for the city to have, but compared to the other three, items in this paper, those seem to be payments for contracted services versus payments for one-time capital costs. And I'm just wondering if there has been discussion about how this additional $450,000 in services are going to be paid for after ARPA funding expires at the end of the 24-month period mentioned in the document.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have Director Dickinson with us still?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, and Jim, I'll ask you, and it may be out of your wheelhouse, so I totally understand that. It sounds like the intent is that the IT help desk support services may be temporary, but my understanding of the Microsoft 365 product is that, you know, you're paying a monthly or an annual subscription fee. Is the intent that that would continue after the 24-month period?
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, yeah, and I appreciate that. It's just, you know, whenever I see an ongoing expense being funded with one-time funds, it just goes back to the discussions we were having in the budget around, you know, it's essentially we're just adding to the structural deficit. And, you know, I don't actually have, I have no question that the services are needed. I think we've all experienced the IT deficiencies of Medford. So it's just that long term concern about making sure that in 24 months this doesn't fall away.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I do have a motion, but I'll wait until my fellow councilors have had a chance to speak.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. One question, Jim, for the helpdesk services, you were saying it's for about 70 to 100 helpdesk requests per month. Was there any consideration of just creating a helpdesk support staff person in-house who could handle that? It sounds like a reasonable workload for a single staff member.
[Zac Bears]: No, that's helpful. I definitely hear where you're coming from on it. I would just also, Madam President, propose a B paper that we formally request that the city administration provide a response to whether, as to whether or not the city council will be approving our appropriations above, in excess of $250,000 for appropriation.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, we just have the motion to receive and place on file in the B paper, correct?
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, that's accidental.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I've spent the better part of the last 12 years in student organizing and worker organizing. And some of the most powerful work that we've been able to do is student worker organizing. So I'm a huge supporter of the work that you're doing. You happen to come up with a great name, Ultra. Pretty good stuff. And I was also the beneficiary during my time at UMass Amherst where our RAs were unionized. And I know that they were able to fight hard for good contracts that really took a fair look at the amount of hours that they were putting in, the on-call status and all the other things RAs face on campus. And I know that I was proud to support those campaigns when I was a student and work with that union in years after that as well. So I think it's great that you're doing this. It's tough to just voluntarily recognize it. I think you said you had two-thirds of people had already signed a card. I mean, you know, you got it. You held an election. You're going to win it. So let's recognize the union, bargain a fair contract, and make sure you get what you deserve. So thank you for being here, and we're glad to support you.
[Zac Bears]: Can we take a two minute recess to take a photo with our union folks and show our support?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, I think specifically as pertains to this paper, you know, we received a letter now three weeks ago outlining some potential opportunities for us to receive information regarding the city's finances and budget, but we haven't received any further communication. I don't believe we've received any requests to schedule any meetings or have warrant articles placed on the agenda or anything of that sort. So, you know, to the point that we've been making as a council for I can't even say how long at this point, at least 11 months, if not 36 months, we really need that information. And that's the role of the finance director. So, you know, I'm certainly open to hear more about why the folks think this is needed, but given the fact that we still haven't had those meetings and discussions or information presented to us, I don't think I would support moving forward with this paper at this time. And we also got a legal opinion that this paper specifically will require five votes. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Just to clarify, this would not go into effect until April 23rd of 2023, April 23rd of next year.
[Zac Bears]: The paper does say 2025. Oh, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, again, I've heard what was said. It is mid-November, and the documents aren't in front of us. Since this wouldn't even go into effect until next April, I would motion to table. I'm fine with that, too, if we want to correct, amend the paper, ask the mayor to amend the paper to reflect the correct date.
[Zac Bears]: Just to clarify my motion, it would be to refer the paper back to the mayor's office for amendment of the typo.
[Zac Bears]: You know the words for the Mustang fights, huh?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. It sounds like not only great rivalry, but great sportsmanship, given that they're going to be doing some unified stuff in advance as well, which is fantastic.
[Zac Bears]: And just if I could, are we going to have a show at halftime by the band?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I know, and the reason I ask is I wasn't on the field during the game, but I was on the field at halftime in the band.
[Zac Bears]: And I probably couldn't sing the fight song, but I think I could still play it.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, we talked about this extensively at our last regular meeting. And I brought up the point that I think we should look at these cases on the merits. In this case, we have a vacant position planning position, and the request is coming from an office that has worked closely in partnership with this council in spite of the communication and leadership issues that we've seen in the city administration. This is a position that would directly assist us in advancing the core work that we've been doing around zoning. that has already borne fruit, big fruits for this community. And again, it would not appropriate any new funding. It's a reappropriation of existing funding to fill a currently vacant planning position. I think that on those case points, this meets the merits of approval. I was very clear earlier on a similar on a not necessarily similar request on a different request from the administration for additional funding for an existing petition for a raise for a position where we haven't been receiving the information we need that I don't support that. In this case and I said it last time and I'll try not to belabor it more right now. This is an office that's working with us on our core goals to advance our priorities so that we can win major benefits for the city. that's happening in spite of the fact that, you know, the mayor has never been here for a conversation on zoning in the three years that we've, that I've been on this council working on zoning. So this is something that I can support because I think it advances our work directly and makes sure that we have the necessary support that we need in an office that is working on planning and bringing in the development that we need to move the city forward. So I will be supporting this. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And I appreciate the discussion that we've all had tonight. And I can understand how folks could vote either way on this paper. I think we all share the frustration with the budget. I think we all share the frustration with the communication. from the mayor's office. And I think we all share the fear that Councilor Scarpelli raised. Last year's budget was a mess. We're six months in, or five, right? Five, whatever, four and a half, five, almost six months in. We're almost halfway through the fiscal year. We haven't had the updates and we've been sent letters that give deadlines that haven't been met yet. Now they're vague deadlines, so maybe they, you know, They're vague deadlines. But I can say one thing about this position. We talk about new growth. This is a position that helps with new growth. We talk about capacity in the planning office to maybe move faster on a couple of projects to bring in some permit fees that could come through quickly under the plan development district. And I know it wears socks for us to also put the plan development district fee in, which could bring in money. Those are things that will directly support the staff and workers of this community because they will potentially prevent reductions in force that we're worried about. If we can bring in $500,000 or a million dollars that we wouldn't have otherwise brought in because we can move through a process a little faster, that's job saved. So I think we should be real clear about that. I completely agree. with what Councilor Knight said about the disrespect and disdain that the administration has shown to almost all, if not all, of the labor partners in our community. I think that's completely true. We've seen it. Multiple units, unfair labor practices, completely no practices filed, rulings made that are clearly against the city, and then the city doubling down after a negative ruling to keep pushing on something that they've just been told is unacceptable. I mean, it's all horrible. And I think you're completely right that we need to stand up and stop it. This position, you know, we're not handing out things left and right. This council has shot down, I think almost every single CAF request and appropriation request that's come before us since January. We've shot them down for the department heads who work directly for the mayor, for the people who you're talking about maybe on the go along to get along train. That's not what this position is. And I don't think that voting this through is a slap in the face to anybody. Now I'm willing to hear again, more discussion, more arguments on it. We're talking about a rank and file person in the department, a position that needs to be filled, and from the presentation that was made three weeks ago at our regular meeting when this was presented, It's not that there's someone the fix is in and there's someone who's going to get this position. It's that there have been, you know, basically that there's a person who's sharing two positions right now, and they've come to a determination that you could have a housing planner, a CPA administrator, and if you can create this position, this position, and actually boost the capacity and leverage CPA funding on the other end so that you have a full-time CPA administrator as well, like they do in many other communities. And, you know, again, I'm not 100% sure, but it would also seem to me that these are positions that could be organized, if they're not already organized, they could be additional membership for labor in our community. So, you know, I don't see this as being in any way in conflict with the fact that we've stood strong and said, We don't agree with the legal opinion on acting positions and raises that have been approved without this council. I think we have, how many are sitting on here? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 CAF proposals and amendments that have been sitting on the table for over a year because we've been unsatisfied. So I don't think we're handing things out left and right. And this one meets the grade for me and I'm not moving forward on the other 12 and we just didn't move forward on another one tonight because we're unsatisfied. So I think we can stand hand in hand with the workers of the city who make the city work. And I think that's what, quite frankly, we'd be doing to this worker here who's going to be bringing in new growth and support for the city and in an ideal world and hopefully what will be happening over the next six months helping this council bring in the long needed revenue that has been needed in the permit fees and the planning development district fees so that we can be the leaders who help to prevent reductions in force because of a bad budget that, you know, the mayor told us we're gonna get. She told us six months ago, the next one's gonna be bad. And then hasn't told us any updates on anything that they're doing to try to fix it. So that's how I see this position. But again, I respect how anyone votes on this tonight. We are in a real mess.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. South, if I may. Yes. I hear you. And I think you would note that this council, you say the many, many papers that have come to us, cherry picking, asking for cap changes and position changes and all of that, that have come before this council from the mayor's office. I'd have to double check the record, but I believe we've turned them all down. All of them that have come before us, because I think in, basically, we agree with you on the principle of what's going on in the city, and then it's not right. Now, I believe also the only calf changes we have approved this year are calf changes that were based on collective bargaining agreements you know we have one tonight from the library union. We approved one. few weeks ago as well. Right. And I guess all I'm saying is, you know, I hear you that you don't that what's going on is wrong. And I think we've all said about a million times that we agree with you that what's going on is wrong and that these contracts should be negotiated and a fair agreement should be reached. I guess my question is just You know, my understanding this position is, we are basically being able by doing this to create two positions where one position currently exists to add to the workforce to increase our capacity for planning. Is that is your position that something, and you're saying I guess what your position is, you can clarify I don't want to mischaracterize you at all, is that this is someone is getting a raise because the mayor likes them.
[Zac Bears]: Right. I'm just saying my understanding of this paper is that this is not a race for a position, it's a way to fill a vacant position. And, you know, we can agree to disagree on on the facts on what you say about Whether or not this is respectful or disrespectful, but I want to be very clear, because I hear from workers all the time in the clerical union and every unit in this building who are equally frustrated on the school side, all the units that are out there were real frustrated with the labor relations in this community. And I stand with them, and this council has been steadfast in standing with them. And if someone came in and this was presented as, we want to give a raise to someone in this department because we think they deserve a raise, it wouldn't be going anywhere. That's not what was presented to us. The person came here, the department head came here and said, if we do this, we can have two positions instead of one position in an essential office. So that's how I see it. I respect your position, but you could have 500 people in the room, or one person in the room. The facts to me wouldn't change my opinion on it.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Just to say that, you know, that's why we've been working hard on minimum wage ordinance for all city and school employees sick leave bank. We're having a meeting tomorrow. I'm trying to bring paid family medical leave to every worker in this community. You know, we've been working really hard on supporting the workers in this community. And we've been standing strong for one, two, three years on the fact of all the labor disputes that are going on. So basically all I'm saying is we seem to have an honest disagreement on the substance of this paper. And I don't want you or anyone else to think that that means that we are in any way changing our position because we've been consistent and strong that we believe that the way that the administration is approaching labor relations is not acceptable. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: have a motion to approve that's been seconded, I just truly don't understand why we start saying things like we were in a decent place, and now we're in a worse on the motion.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Bears. Yes, under protest.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to take papers 22-502 and 22-562 off the table.
[Zac Bears]: 22-502 and 22-562. 52 and 22-562. For third reading. For third reading.
[Zac Bears]: CAF proposal associated with the previous paper. Again, I think this is on balance a good thing for the community to have additional planning staff. I don't know if I can further disassociate my position with the words that were just said by the chief of staff. Like I don't agree with what they're saying. I do agree with what Alicia Hunt said three weeks ago. That's why I support this. I truly don't understand. I just truly don't understand the approach. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: that all the parties have agreed to this contract, and that's one that's been presented before us.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Amanda, can I share my screen when?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, so first and foremost, I'd like to thank the whole board for their time this evening. I want to acknowledge everybody's time and want to follow up from last time we've met. We did an initial review on this project a couple of weeks ago, and you guys gave us some very helpful comments and suggestions that we've heeded your advice and made a bunch of changes that I think have improved the project overall. Before I get into that, I just wanted to introduce myself. My name is Kyle Harnish. I'm a builder and a developer. I was brought on this team by Brian to assist in this capacity, essentially to help in the building and development of this site. I do have experience in this field, and I hope that I can clearly communicate our vision and answer any and all questions that may come about. I do want to acknowledge Brian's effort to getting this project to this point. Brian and his family obviously own and operate this parcel of land and Brian's been working on this project for a couple years and has done his best job and putting this team together with individuals such as myself who all come from different backgrounds to you know, help assist in seeing this project as come to fruition and achieve success, which I think we all want to do. But Brian has certainly been the visionary behind this project from day one. And, you know, it takes a lot of energy and effort over the past couple years to get it to this point. And I think that, you know, I'm happy to be a part of this team and I've been engaged with this now for about a year and a half and where it started from where it is today, I think we've seen dramatic improvements and obviously with the help of the board and various letters we received from the city of Medford, various departments, suggestions that they made all just improved the project even more so. So without kind of further ado, I'd like to jump into the revised plan and presentation.
[Zac Bears]: All right, so Great American Beer Hall, as you all know, I want to start off with the, what we call a locus map, the general location of this property, highlighted here in the dotted red lines, two acre parcel. It's right across from Hancock Street, right on Mystic Avenue, basically in between Atlas Liquors and Medford VFW, for anybody who might not know the exact location of this property. Here's a satellite view of 142 Mystic Ave. I've outlined it in the red there. It's currently sharing with the parcel next door, which Brian's family also owns and operates. So I did the best we could at defining the actual parameters of this specific lot for which the beer hall will occupy. As you can see from the overhead view, it's mainly auto body mechanic use and storage of school bus. This is the view from the rear, so this is coming from 93. You can see, again, the rectangle that is essentially our parameters of the lot. That building in the front, auto body, that whole space will be torn down and the rest of the lot will be clear. As you can kind of see from this image, the lot is fairly level. In the back there, you can see the school bus storage. So from the front, this is from Mystic Ave view. Again, very industrial, mainly car storage. So from Mystic Avenue itself, standing on Mystic Avenue, front side elevation, this is what you're staring at on a day-to-day basis. It looks very much industrial. You have that giant telephone pole in your way, not very exciting, not very inviting. There's another view just further up the street, looking back at the project or the property, excuse me. just, again, very industrial, nothing very inviting about this space at all. Certainly not a place I'd like to gather at night. Now, the whole genesis of this thing is, you know, how can we improve Mystic Avenue? And I think, you know, Brian's had this vision from the beginning of, you know, what Mystic Avenue could potentially be. And, you know, it's a scary thought for our team and our group of individuals who are invested in this to be kind of the first domino, I think, to fall. So, you know, we poured a lot of heart and a lot of energy into seeing this project, you know, beautify Mystic Avenue and kind of be the catalyst for future development. So, you know, this is kind of where we see the biggest change. So, on the left side, obviously, you see the existing site, and on the right side, you see the proposed. obviously a dramatic change, very more inviting. I don't want to get married too much to the exact image. It is a concept image. We are in development. Our budgets are limited in this capacity. You have a group of individuals who've committed their own capital, who are very invested in this, and our budgets do have We do have limitations, so the renderings are not exactly what they might be. Those will get flushed out later in the design, build, and permitting phase of this project. But to give you an idea of the dramatic change that we see happening on this specific parcel, this is to basically show you that. So Here's a more enlarged view of that front side elevation coming off Mystic Ave. Obviously the cars are gone, the bus is gone, that old dilapidated building is gone, you know, and a much more inviting social space that we think can be the hub for Mystic Ave and hopefully, as we mentioned, spur future development on the street. The front side elevation for us has to be inviting. It has to have some green space. We heard you loud and clear in the last meeting, and we've done our best job to increase the landscape area of this lot. We do want the experience here to not feel as though you're on an industrial lot and in an industrial space, so we want to feel like people are escaping to this development, into this building. I feel like it needs to be an experience for visitors and customers alike. And I think a buffer of landscape and some sort of inviting nature towards the building will accomplish that. Now this is the side view. This side view I know has drawn some concerns from members of the board and I totally hear you and I understand that because of the massing of the project, it looks so large. We have these windows all at the top part here, we have our roof deck here, which is all well and nice. There is a lot of surface area on the lower half where there's not a lot of glazing and you know the reason for that is a lot of our concessions and stuff are on that wall so there's really no use for the windows being there. Don't want people peeking in behind the bars behind the concession stands and whatnot. But we do have plans and ideas that we've shared with our architect already to perhaps grow some sort of green wall here planting wall some sort of signage to beautify that front entrance and space and make it more welcoming and also to direct traffic to our main entrance on the further back on the property on the backside of the building here, we will have installed a bike rack. So that'll be a more inviting space there. But, you know, I do think that we have things in play that will beautify this building and not make it look so industrial and commercial. And we're playing around with those ideas right now with our architects, but I hear you loud and clear. And I think it is our team commitment to make this project and this building as beautiful as possible because it will in turn benefit us and invite people in and be something that we can all be very proud of. So that is the side elevation. Now, I wanted to just get into the site as general I remember the last meeting, somebody on the board mentioned grading and the overall pitch of the site. It's kind of difficult to see on the site plan but try to zoom in for you at the rear, almost facing 93, you have grade 12. Okay, so that's elevation 12 at the rear. And if we look at the front, which is on Mystic Ave coming in, you know, you have a 10 coming off the curb and then you're up to an 11. So you're talking a one to two foot pitch over 400 feet. So a very level lot. Certainly something that as a builder, I love to see. Not a tremendous amount of challenges in a level lot. Sorry, I don't know why it did that. Let me go back. Forgive me. Sorry, try to go back to that. There we go. So, a couple things with the site plan that you'll see on here that you won't see on our landscape plan. You'll see these dotted lines at the front. of the parking lot here. That's a proposed infiltration system, essentially stormwater management system. This is where our drainage will go. So the lot, the parking lot, you'll see is at 12, 12 and a half at the top, goes down to 11, goes down to 11, and then pitches all the way down to essentially that is to send all the water down to this infiltration system here, and then there's another infiltration system in the back by the loading dock, and that is to send the water down this way. So those are our stormwater management systems that have been looked at and are being worked out with our civil engineering team and the city of Medford Engineering Department. So we will get calcs on all that, but it's basically the surface area that is out there and how much water That hopefully answers questions on whether or not the lot is level. It certainly is. You can also see here, these are the utilities coming off Mystic Ave outlined here that go into our buildings. So in terms of utilities, gas, water, sewer, drain, and underground electric, it is in our intention to get everything underground. There is an electric pole at the front of this property. right on Mystic Ave that is owned by the utility company and we will do everything in our power to hopefully get that pole removed and get a transformer somewhere put on the landscape buffer area. No guarantees there but it is something that I am looking into and hopefully can get either Eversource, National Grid, whoever manages and maintains that pole to work with us in that so that all the utilities are underground. I just think it makes for a better development and you don't have to stare at the pole right in front of the building. Um, so that's the site overall. Now we'll get into the, um, revised plan here. Get me back to me out of this.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I don't know why it's letting me scroll as it once was. Let me try to enlarge it for you. Forgive me if I'm taking extra time. Okay, so here is the revised landscape plan and I worked on this, basically, to answer most of the questions that were brought about in the last preliminary hearing and also upon receiving all the letters from the Medford Fire Department, the Public Works Department, the Engineering Department and the Traffic Department. So we worked on this pretty diligently and forgive us, we do have budget constraints. This isn't some high level architectural rendering. So we're doing the best we can, but when it does come to actually permitting phase you will get much better and clearer images and renderings but I think it still communicates our message and hopefully highlight some of the areas of concern. Basically, everything was designed here in the city ordinance 6.3, which was provided by the planning department office. Alicia and Victor were kind enough to kind of send me some of that stuff and I kind of reviewed it to the best of my ability and included all those measures in here. So just as an overall idea of this lot size and how much we're covering, I just kind of wanted to give you an idea and we did so in this legend up here for the zoning requirements. This is commercial C2. And basically what is required of us is 35 feet of frontage. We actually have about 195 feet on Mystic Ave, 15 feet setback for the building. From the front side and rear, we have about 140 setback to the front of the building here, 15 on this side facing Atlas Liquors, and certainly more than that on that side, and then 30 feet from the rear. So we well within our setbacks, the height on this structure can exceed 30 so we're going right to 30 maximum lot coverage is 50% we're going to be at about 27.5. And the way I calculated that is over here in the lower left hand part of the legend. Overall lot size we have is about 89,620. The landscape area, and I'm calling the landscape area just the green area I have highlighted on the plan, that alone is 9,000 square feet. The patio area shown at the front, which is the beer garden essentially, is about 4,400 square feet. And the way I understand the city ordinances, the open space clause is that open area that that's your garden should be included in that tally. So if you calculate the landscape plus the open area, I have 13,400 square feet, which is 15% of the overall lot coverage. The building area is 24,682, that is this structure here, not including the beer garden, and that calculates to about 27.5% of the overall lot coverage. in increasing our landscape from the previous design to this design, you know, we're more than half of what our building coverage is. And I think that is a really nice balance for us into, you know, bring some more green to our area. So a couple things I want to go over that have varied from the last meeting were some of the changes that we made and Certainly if you have any questions, feel free to ask. First and foremost, one thing we heard loud and clear was the reduction of the overall width of our roadway. On the original site plan, it was spec'd at about 28 feet. And we designed that to be above what the fire department was requiring. The fire department got back to us and essentially asked for 24 feet for two lane traffic, excuse me. And so we shrunk it to 24 feet. which means less asphalt for us, a little more landscape buffer. And I think more importantly, and to the board's point, which was an excellent point from the last meeting was to increase the pedestrian access from Mystic Avenue. So what we've done now by shrinking this to 24 foot roadway, we're able to fit sidewalks on both sides, coming from the South and coming from the North on Mystic Ave. which I think will greatly improve pedestrian access to our site. Now, this sidewalk you can see was added in here, the trajectory this pathway would take was across the parking lot here and through this crosswalk, and then you can see we've added a pedestrian crosswalk across the front of our building and into our main entrance. Now, mystic have right here there's a 15 foot easement, essentially from the state of Massachusetts because it's a it's a Massachusetts roadway. So, the 15 feet, basically constitutes a five foot concrete sidewalk. plus a six inch curb, so five and a half feet. And that leaves us nine and a half feet of landscape buffer. That is gonna be on both sides of the parking lot. So landscape buffer of nine and a half feet here, here's your pedestrian sidewalk, there's your curbing, same condition on the opposite side, nine and a half foot landscape or five foot sidewalk and curbing in between. This landscape buffer was a big thing that came about in the last meeting. And as it's shown here now, it's just purely lawn, I do have a slide that I'll show you next where we do intend to do some plantings here. I think small shrubs, and traditionally what I've done in the past is anything greater than 30 feet you plant a small tree. I think that's something we can certainly look at doing here. My issue here is the overhead wires. On the southern part of Mystic Ave, there's that telephone pole that we talked about that I hope we can move, but no guarantee. That is a bit of a process. So I think there to be expected is low shrubbery and low plants, which we're open to doing and certainly, you know, shielding a bit of our parking lots from Mystic Ave. But I just wanted to point out that we do have a challenge there in the telephone pole. So parking, parking I've highlighted on the whole development. The main parking lot here has 86 spots, 75 of which are regular, four are handicap and we've included now what we're calling seven EV or electric vehicle spots. Those seven spots are right here, one, two, three, four. 567. Now we're committed, and we talked to Alicia about this, we're committed to running conduit to these areas. We don't have a specific charging station spec yet or anything like that. Again, budget constraints, but we are open to certainly running conduit to these areas and working with the City of Medford when it comes about, if there's opportunities for us to take advantage of some incentives or some, you know, cost breaks, we would be open to putting charging stations there. But for now, I think the best we can do is provide conduit to those areas. On the front side here, you'll see we have an additional 16 spots. So 14 regular, 2 handicap. So if you calculate the 16 spots plus these 86, you get a total of 102. And the traffic department confirmed this in their review is 102 spots. So I worked with Alicia and Victor and Amanda in the calculation of what was required for parking on this site. And based on the calculation of the building, whether or not you include the beer garden, it remains up in the air. But for the sake of this measure, we included the beer garden. So if you include the 24,682 plus the 4,400 of the patio area, you get above 29,000 square feet and if you divide that by one spot per 350 square feet is the calculation we were given by Alicia's office and you come up with 83 spots so that would be the minimum for a development as such 83 spots and the maximum is double that number so 166 so we're offering 102 which we think is a generous little sweet spot and the reason we exceeded the 83 was mainly because we had a community outreach reading a few months back and one thing we heard loud and clear from local neighbors, mainly on the side streets, was they were concerned that the traffic to this building would lead to people parking on the side streets and impacting their properties negatively. That is certainly not something we want to do and we assured the neighbors of this property that we would do the best we can to mitigate that and put as much parking as we saw fit on our property. So that's kind of how we landed at 102. We felt like it was a sweet spot, a little bit above what is required, but not so excessive. And that is mainly in response to our community outreach meeting. So that is the parking. Now around the parking you'll see we have a seven foot landscape buffer all along here, all along the parking in the edges. The tree plantings we've done here I did an accordance with the with the zoning ordinance provided by Victor's office, the landscape plan 6.3, if you look at it, any parking lot that exceeds 20 parking spaces is required to have a tree per 10 spots. So if you see we have 86 spots all at 90, you should have nine trees, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12. So there's 12 in that area we exceed our minimum there. And this doesn't really fall in it because it doesn't exceed 20 spots so therefore there's not a minimum but we still have two trees there regardless. So I think the tree planting that we're proposing is sufficient. So that's the reason behind the trees. The lighting again I met with Alicia and Victor and Amanda on this and I did the best I could. I put lighting in here, parking lot lighting, and it's in accordance with the city spec performance standards and zoning order in section 6.44. There is no very specific spec for the lighting just yet, and I'm open to working with the city and finding one and proposing some lights. We understand there'll be LED, you know, anything that's efficient is in our best interest as well. So I think we were going to work with the design build team and our architect to provide some sort of lighting options and then go before Alicia and show her what our thoughts are on the parking lot lighting. Around the beer garden here, you can see we have some string lights. One thing we put on here, which we heard from the board last time, permeable pavers will be used on this beer garden. So 4,400 square feet of permeable pavers here. We do intend to put some form of barrier around our patio, whether that's a reclaimed wooden fence out of pallets maybe perhaps old wine barrels, whiskey barrels with white rope, there's going to be some delineation there between the area in which you can drink alcohol and then obviously the parking lots and the pedestrian sidewalk. So we don't have a full commitment on what that barrier will be. It'll be low, it'll probably be four feet or so, and there'll be some plantings and shrubs in between, perhaps some planter boxes so people can still see in, but we do not want people gaining access from the parking lot that way. On the other side of the beer garden there, there's a 15-foot landscape buffer that kind of traverses the whole back here. We basically split half the building and increased that green area all the way up above 180, 200 feet of our structure. And the reason for that was, again, in hearing the board of increased green space, increased lawn space, you know, we see potential here of perhaps dog area or something of that nature. We've also added hedges alongside the Atlas Liquor property, which is along here, it's about 80 feet of hedges, I think that'll shield that parking lot from Atlas Liquors. A bike rack was mentioned at the last meeting. We have a 15 foot metal bike rack included at the front side of the building over here. We put it further back on the property just to hopefully deter any theft or anything like that. We also have two loading bays at the back of the property that was brought about by one of the departments. And then we've clearly identified our entrances. We've opened up our landscape buffer area to show the flow of traffic going to the parking lots. and how those concrete sidewalks are going to work. So I think overall, that is essentially the changes that were made on our behalf, and hopefully answering a lot of the questions and concerns from the board in the last meeting, and certainly all the letters we received from the various departments. One thing I wanna bring about in attention to from one of the departments was the traffic department. We understand that the traffic study that was provided is lacking in some areas, and the traffic department director suggested some mitigation efforts to help us get where we need to be. And I think our team is committed to doing our best effort in working with the town, I mean, the city to achieve those mitigation efforts. He provided essentially two pathways, not sure if everybody read the report, the first of which mitigation efforts are mainly using MassDOT because that road, Mystic Ave is a MassDOT road. So we would have to engage with them and offer some ideas in mitigating the traffic flow to our site. And I just know from experience there, it's a bit of a process working with MassDOT. So I don't wanna guarantee anything there, but I do certainly, I will make a concerted effort and I think the team is supportive of this to engage with MassDOT and share with them our thoughts and how to improve the flow for Mystic Ave. And I think the traffic department suggestions are certainly ways to improve the area. My concern is just MassDOT being responsive in a timely manner. and working with us, but it certainly will be an effort that we will put forth. Secondarily, the traffic director was kind enough to offer other mitigating efforts, which I see as totally doable on our behalf, mainly some barriers, some painting. I think he had planned for some crosswalk signage, which we are open to, we are certainly willing to do. our best interest to draw good traffic and good flow to this area. We don't want to cause any problems or issues on Mystic Ave, and we are committed to doing whatever it takes. I just tread with caution when it comes to the MassDOT. I do not want to over-promise and under-deliver in that regard. So I certainly appreciate the traffic director's suggestion for some other mitigating efforts, which we are committed to doing. Other than that, I don't see anything that came about from the various boards that, excuse me, from the various departments that we are not able to answer or flush out either in this meeting or some of the stormwater questions that came about from the engineering office. Those are all being worked on by our civil engineering team. And obviously when we go for permitting, stormwater permits are required. So we won't be able to do anything without those permits in place, irregardless. So I think we've sufficiently answered most of those questions. And to bring me just back to my slides here to give some detail on the landscape buffer, this is just something I brought from another development. So to give you an idea of what that Mystic Ave entrance, I know the board was curious on what our efforts are gonna be on that landscape buffer. And this is kind of just a general, idea, I guess, of what it might look like. I've highlighted here, a four foot max shrub height. And then on the bottom slide there it's, it shows you the nine and a half foot minimum buffer, and then various plantings and shrubs located and then you know for every 10, 12, 30 feet, so we can try to plant a mature tree. However, I think with the current telephone pole that exists on one side, that's going to be very difficult to do. So I just wanted to give the board some idea of what our vision is for that landscape buffer on Mystic Ave. Go to the next slide here. Okay, so again, this is your front view. Something that came about, what I want to talk about next is the overall design and aesthetic of this building. And, you know, I think, I hope the board understands this, like I've mentioned several times before, there are budget constraints in this project. We've already done a lot and paid a lot of money to get to this point. And, you know, without knowing that we're actually going to build this thing it's hard to commit more capital to have the full architectural plan done. So, at this point, this is, you know, the best that I think that we can provide to the board to give you an idea of what we're trying to build and I have some slides to show you guys some what I think are successful metal prefab buildings and how they've been. built in some of the other areas of the country that I think are good examples of what we're trying to do. Something to understand, a key factor to our building is the prefab metal. The reason for that is twofold. One, cost, keep our costs down. Two, speed. We want to open this thing as soon as possible and we are committed to doing so. Um, and the big reason, uh, for us to doing that is obviously construction costs are constantly fluctuating. Uh, since the pandemic I I'm in this field and in this industry has been very difficult to gauge pricing and, uh, almost everything you put out to bid comes back over budget. So you're constantly, um, constantly trying to value engineer and also source materials from different areas. So, you know, something that might be visual to you today on this board might not be available to us. So we're just trying to give you a concept image of what we're trying to achieve. And I think the other other buildings that I show you will be helpful in and gaining some perspective of where we're coming from. But metal prefab building, it'll be a low pitched gable roof just like this. You'll have a second floor roof deck. You'll have as much glazing as we can get on the first floor to see into the property. You will have an outdoor patio. This is shown as concrete. Again, forgive us on that it is permeable pavers, but this is just purely a concept. We will try to carry the front facade with as much glazing as possible to again invite people in. So to give you an idea of the building itself, metal prefab building, likely metal cladding on the outside. We haven't decided on a color or anything yet, but I wanted to give you guys some real world examples of metal prefab buildings that I think are pretty successful. So here's one, Pacific Northwest. This is a wine market and hall. Again, if you just follow the architecture of this thing, it's a low pitched roof, gable roof. metal prefab building, a lot of glazing on the front. It's obviously on a main road. I'll show you another view of this same building. Why does it keep going back to that? Sorry. So this is the building again. low pitched roof. You can see they have solar on top, which we intend to do. HVAC mechanicals are on top. They obviously have some outside dining. They're on a main road. I know if you look at more recent images of this property, they have this landscape buffer here. It's very narrow. Ours is bigger, but these have grown into some vines. And so they've shielded some of that metal, corrugated metal paneling with some landscape screens, which I think is a real nice detail. They have some plantings in the front. And again, this is just kind of shows you a real world example. I'll give you one more. This is Surly Brewing. So this is a metal prefab building. Again, look at the roof pitch, very similar to ours. This has some second floor mezzanine, obviously some indoor outdoor feel and a fire pit in the front. So this is essentially trying to give, to give you some idea of, you know, our job is to create an experience for our customers. So I think that indoor outdoor feel is something that I think is going to be instrumental in our success. So any areas we can do that we're going to. So you know mainly our strong point I think is on the Mystic Ave elevation and that front beer garden. So we're going to do the best we can to keep it open, keep it airy. Obviously being in New England we have challenges with weather so know, a good part of the year, we won't be open out there. But it is in our best interest to introduce as much glass as possible and create that flow indoor and outdoor. So those are three real world examples of metal prefab buildings. You know, this one in particular, I don't particularly like the color of it. I think it's a little too dark, but the lighting of this space, I really do like. So I think, you know, that should help give some ideas to the board of what we're trying to achieve design-wise and aesthetically. I know the board has seen this before, but for anybody who hasn't, this is just to kind of give you an indication of what the inside is gonna be, large gathering spaces down the center of the beer hall, concessions on the outside, beer garden at the front, and then additional taps on the other side of the building and then bathrooms at the rear, and then we're gonna have some form of second floor mezzanine, again great for private events and maybe some home, some offices, ADA accessible bathrooms, we have an elevator, and then a roof deck off the front. Just to give you some idea, again, concept images, please forgive us, limited budget, but this tries to give you some idea of what the inside might look like. You know, don't get married to the flooring or the color scheme or anything like that. It's just to show you that people are congregated in a social setting in the middle of this building with a lot of glass, trying to feel escaped, I think, from the city and the hustle and bustle of Mystic Ave. The idea is to create an environment inviting inside as well as outside. I'll show you another view. This just shows you some of the beer vending stations down below. This is up looking from the mezzanine level, some form of television for sporting events, things of that nature. Um, and then one last view just shows you some seating. This is not the set of chairs we particularly have or the tables. It's just to kind of give you this communal aspect of, you know, um, bringing people together. And that's kind of what our motto is best brought together. And, um, we feel that this beer hall can certainly achieve that and, and, um, we're doing the best we can to, to make an inviting space. that people want to gather both inside and out. So to wrap this up, I kind of wanted to give you a gap timeline on where we're at and kind of how this project has come to date. We've applied for our liquor license, so we're still awaiting that. Site planning and permitting, we hope to get through as soon as possible. There are time constraints not only on our capital, we are being funded by Capital One through an SBA loan. And we have capital requirements and commitments that have certain deadlines to them. So, you know, we are running low on that timeline. And I think Brian has clearly communicated it from the beginning. His family who owns and manages the property, they have tenants and need to give them forewarning. And there's leases and things of that nature that are coming up to expire. So it is certainly critical path for us. We are at that juncture right now and need to move things along as best as possible. Our team is committed to doing it. We just hope the board sees it the same way in assisting us to get, we understand there's multiple steps still to be had, but this is one critical and important step that can get us on the right path. Again, I mentioned time, speed, the metal prefab buildings, we can move fast and it is in our intention completely to move fast. So if we can get swift approvals and permitting going as soon as possible, we will intend to build in the spring in May of 2023, and hopefully have one year of building and be open by spring 2024. Um, so that's what our team is committed to. And, um, you know, I hope with, um, the, the help of this board that, um, you know, you guys will see it the same way as we do and, and doing everything we can to improve Mystic Ave and make it, um, you know, a place for people to want to be and hopefully, uh, spur future development on the street. So I'm open to any questions from anybody. Uh, I hope I didn't take too much of your time.
[Zac Bears]: The cost of construction has really gone up since COVID and all that. And so I had a budget back in 2019 when I started this and it is, I can't believe the numbers that we're looking at. And so working it back from what we qualify for for the SBA loan through Capital One is how we got to where we are at now. And so we just don't have the funds to keep going given where we're at now in our timeline, this is literally the best foot forward that we could possibly do.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so we've pledged capital already to start that process. We've already engaged the Haines group, which is our builder. It's a design build capacity. They'll get every note from these meetings, all the letters that have been provided by the city. So we know and we'll design exactly to what is required. So traditionally in previous developments that I've worked on to answer your question, if it doesn't have a full site plan, like you're asking for, there's usually an order of conditions handed down. by you guys, you know, and then we make sure that when you will see the final plan and make sure it, you know, answers all your questions and has everything that you need on it.
[Zac Bears]: For the traffic, I think the good part about our project is that the quietest times in Mystic Ave right now is our busiest times. And we wanted to have the most want to provide. As far as live music, we're gonna have that indoors, not amplified outdoors, outdoors during the day, we might have like a one man, one man band there or something like that. But no cognizant of the noise. And, you know, the outdoor area finishes up a lot earlier into into the night and then the indoor area.
[Zac Bears]: Could you give us just a course? Yeah. So like, the liquor license are pretty, pretty standard. But right now on the weekends, we're, you know, 12 to 1am with last call being at, you know, 12 o'clock. right now, just Monday through Wednesday, we're private party only. But we are going to be, we're going to be thinking about being open Mondays, you know, for sporting events and such and such like that.
[Zac Bears]: I really can't talk about the other question for the city.
[Zac Bears]: is so much better than the current use, than the tow yard and the bus yard.
[Zac Bears]: We're asking the city what they want, but we're up for adding in the crosswalk or even putting in a light, a blinking light there and adding another one in. Yeah we can manage our crosswalks on our own site but anything on Mystic Ave is managed by MassDOT so that's both MassDOT approvals which uh you know we I mentioned in our presentation that we're willing to engage them and do the best efforts we can and I certainly think um any comments that you can you know follow up and make with your traffic director and make his department aware that you have concerns. Perhaps his push can help MassDOT. You know, they got a laundry list of capital improvement projects across the state. And, you know, it's just a matter of us getting our attention to this specific matter. And I think that that comes a lot with some follow up from the city, you know.
[Zac Bears]: We didn't want to draw on our loan unless this was a full go. Yeah, that's fine.
[Zac Bears]: I'll say we provided a site plan. We don't have a full landscape plan. The site plan is provided by a registered engineer.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it's one of the... Yeah, it's this. The drainage, the stormwater management, that's all registered engineering.
[Zac Bears]: It's this one here that was in the presentation.
[Zac Bears]: Well, that's where I'm a little lost because this site plan is the direct CAD drawing that was used for the other landscape plan. They do effectively line up. I just blew up the landscape plan in a larger image so that you could see it in a presentation, you know, and outlined as many things as I possibly could. You know, I understand that the landscape architect hasn't been engaged and hasn't been, you don't have a full spec on the lawn or the size of shrub or the specific hedge that we're using, but we designed it to meet the performance standards as we saw fit and provided what I think is the most important piece is the civil engineering site plan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, based on the previous meeting, I outlined 15 different items that were brought about and put it on the EMS.
[Zac Bears]: There is one that we provided.
[Zac Bears]: If I want to jump in here for a sec, like I've, I've been working on this for three years and we've taken, we've had engineers out there that I've done soil tests and boring tests and all that. And so like, architects and engineers based on really where it was the best place to put the building. And then we worked off of that because just of the soil conditions and all that, it's, you know, the foundation here is rather extensive.
[Zac Bears]: I think I think Alicia answered some of that already whether or not you know we've met the conditions of what is required. I mean if you understand we're lacking in some areas certainly we do understand that I tried to my best of our ability to explain that but to Alicia's point you know we're required to meet a certain level of conditions and we've provided the materials granted they might not be you know, breathtaking landscape imagery, but it's a list of things that were requested by this board a few weeks ago. We provided them a list of them and provided them on an updated plan. If there was severe issues with it, we should have been brought to our attention a few weeks ago. Now we've just, in my opinion, have wasted time.
[Zac Bears]: So with all due respect, if somebody could communicate what that is. just a landscape architect stamping a plan that shows grass and it's various bushes. Cause you know, we've had several, several meetings, not only I respect the board and what they're, you know, and what they have to do, but we've met with the planning director we've met in several meetings and did the best we possibly could. And that's all we're asking is that we get a, you know, a fair evaluation to provide providing you the best we possibly could. If you tell us, you know, it's just, if you can give us some direction of why it's lacking other than, landscape architect stamping it and telling, you know, specifying the plants and trees. We've given you a site plan. And then you guys reviewed that. And we've got a little, a certain level of conditions here of what's required. And obviously there's still several steps to get to, to actually put a shovel in the ground on this thing.
[Zac Bears]: We're not asking for a variance. We're not asking to circumvent any building codes or anything like that. And the reality of the situation is that I think this project is so much better for the city and for the land. And if it's not passed tonight, then the tow yard and the bus yard, and it's gonna stay the exact same for the next five years. There's options in the leases and that's what's gonna happen. And I just think this would be just a complete disservice to the city of Medford.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, we have- I know that, but sometimes I just think common sense is, it should be used. And I can't believe if you have to choose between a tow yard and the Great American Beer Hall, you're gonna choose a tow yard.
[Zac Bears]: That's the reality of the situation. It is a choice.
[Zac Bears]: There's options and they expire October 31st. and also it's a condition of our 7A loan through Capital One. All of this is conditions on this project happening. And so without tonight, we're just not gonna move forward.
[Zac Bears]: I said it's a concept image, so you don't get married to the exact image you're seeing. However, it is and I went through this in detail, it's a low pitch roof, metal prefab building looks just like that. We don't have a specific color picked out yet. And the amount of glazing I said with the indoor outdoor feel on the front side elevation, just because you see a full curtain wall, it might be 75% of that given budget constraints come the time of actual building class goes up periodically. That image is as close as we can provide. That's based on architectural drawings provided by Whitlock Design Group, which we provided floor plans and schematics. I just didn't want the board to get married to the exact color. I think we can improve it dramatically, actually. So I think it's lacking in some definition, but it is a metal prefab building. It's gonna look essentially like that architecturally. I just didn't want the board to get married to the specific color, perhaps the roof color. I tried to preface that, but if it came across as that's not what we're building, I apologize to the board. But that is pretty indicative. It's just the color palette and things are going to probably change.
[Zac Bears]: The size is there. I mean, that's what we're essentially approved for. I mean, construction costs again are fluctuating mightily. That's the only place we really have in value engineering, but that is it. That is the building. That's what we're asking for. We've paid architects to design it. As Brian pointed out, we've gone through several iterations of where this building should be based on soil testings. You know, we've dug our test pits. We've done all that stuff. You know, we've just reached you know, the point of kind of, this is the best that we have for you. And I certainly hear the board that, you know, we're lacking in landscape and things of that nature. And I think we can work with the board to achieve what is, you know, what can beautify the space and hopefully improve it. But, you know, I just, usually I can get some form of direction or something, but I, you know, I wanna be respectful of the whole process.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Are you talking about the neighbor on the one 34 mystic side?
[Zac Bears]: property as well. So that's okay.
[Zac Bears]: It's on your screen. It's like gross. Oh, it says screen sharing is paused. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: that would be okay with me. What's gotten to my head is the leases that are in play, the landlords have landlord options, and they do not want the site to go vacant. So they don't want us to move forward, we say we're fine, and then ultimately the site plan review says no to us. The tenants are moving out, or they're asking for concessions, and it just becomes, honestly, like a fireball fence in my shoes. So that's where I'm coming from.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I'm going to have to relay this to obviously my bosses, and I can't guarantee that we're going to be able to go forward. But I did like Alicia's idea that, you know, I fully understand what you're saying, but we are going to be beholden to the building permit and every every engineer and every department in the city. And that is our next step in this process. I see Patrick Andrews on the call and our next step is literally just a, you know, it's what 218,000 architectural plans and then another, you know, 50,000 engineers and we're fully prepared to spend that to do this the right way. The way that the board is suggesting tonight, landlords are going to want to just keep what we have now.
[Zac Bears]: If you want to have some sort of conditions in there that requires us to come back,
[Zac Bears]: And then I just if when I hear like what if places saying all the gathering that this could just change that the parking can change the sidewalks can change and everything.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, everything's been, you know, behind the scenes from my group, the landlords to Capital One, everyone's on the same page with this, we're ready to move forward with it.
[Zac Bears]: Well, that's why we're here tonight. I mean, we basically laid that out. We're hoping for an acceptance with conditions. I've done this several times and that's how other communities handle it and approval with conditions. And we have to meet those conditions before the board, you know, and you guys, if I understand that it might be a lengthy list in this regard, and we're asking for some assistance and help because we're, we're small time, you know, but, We have the capacity to engage the architects and the designers and the engineers, as Brian said. And we just want some clarity and direction on what would help us get back to you guys with everything that you want to see. We don't want to go through several iterations and reiterations of this. We understand that you guys have the community in mind and want to see the best product out there. And I think we totally agree with you. You know, I understand Brian's situation too and it is a difficult one, but I think some form of approval with conditions would be would be instrumental and helpful for us. And we're not, you know, objecting to, you will see the final plan and certainly the landscape plan and stuff. And I'm the one who probably engaged with you guys the most. And I'm happy to hear your thoughts, Clace. I think it's very helpful hearing your thoughts, you know, and what you see concerns with. And I can bring that to the attention of our engineers and provide some context and some answers when we come back. But I think from Brian's standpoint, yes, he needs some assurances so that you know, this isn't a waste of time for everybody.
[Zac Bears]: That's understood. I mean, we use the city ordinances as our guide and provide what we think is sufficient. And then obviously, if you have an opinion on it and want to, you know, change it, we can have that discussion. But that's the pathway we give our engineers is, you know, it has to comply. And we have city ordinances that give us the guidelines.
[Zac Bears]: That's a great question. It's not a matter of affording it. It's a matter of the utility company willing to do so. We can put in a request. So it depends on who owns the pole. It's either Eversource, National Grid, Verizon. And then you got to put in a request to them to put a transformer in its place. So the power still goes to the pole. You remove that pole, it'll come from the nearest pole, go underground and go to a pad mount transformer that's still going to have to be located somewhere in our landscape buffer area, and we'll have to put some shrubs around it and whatnot, but it's still going to be better than the pole that's there. I mean, that's just a goal of ours that we're committed to trying to do that, and I think Clay's brought it up, the entrance, the driveway access, the curb cut is proposed in its location, and that's primarily the reason it can't be further slid down, it's off-center, is because we have a utility line right there, and there's no guarantee we can get it moved.
[Zac Bears]: Just a better look in street and- So aesthetic. Yeah, aesthetic, yeah. And I mean, we're gonna be running underground utilities anyway to the street. So you'd be digging one extra line for conduit for the electrical to run to that location. Eversource or whoever the utility provider is owns it from the pole down. We would own the excavation from the building to the curb. So I hope that answers your question.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, he did. He provided us some mitigation efforts that clearly outlined what he would like to see. We're willing to comply with all that if you want to put that in there.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, he offered two paths, and one of them was the DOT. The other one was another mitigation effort that we said we would commit to, and we're fine with that, and we can put that in. Um, but that's helpful. He made a suggestion, and that gives us clear direction on what he wants. So.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we can outline that.
[Zac Bears]: What about providing a landscape plan from an actual landscape architect? I mean, that's pretty basic, but it outlines what you need from us, I think, without getting into the literal weeds.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, make the landscape plan in accordance to 6.4 by a registered landscape architect.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, understood. And that's what's helpful for us. As we mentioned, this is design build. So we have the opportunity. We're providing our entire design build team, every letter provided from everybody so that everything is designed to meet within the standards. And obviously there are some noise ordinance standards that are published from the city ordinances that we know about, and we're doing the best we can to comply with every single one of them. But it's definitely, we've acknowledged that we're hearing that, and we will be providing those letters to our design team to effectively manage it the best we possibly can.
[Zac Bears]: Perhaps, yes. Biggest thing, biggest parameter we have to abide by is the fire department access and be able to turn around the fire truck.
[Zac Bears]: We can explore that, sure, and talk with our engineers. If it improves our site, it improves, you know, and reduces our costs and all that stuff, certainly something. And, you know, as Brian said, we've been working on this for a while. So, you know, the engineers have been out several times and they proposed it this way. We saw it this way, but it's worth noting, I guess, you know, we can look into it.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so we extended about 200 feet on the right sides, 15 foot wide. And the reason for that specifically was I was trying to hit the performance standard, which is listed in 6.3 of the landscape city ordinances. And that was, you're supposed to have 10% of the surface area, landscape and open area. So I hit it with at least lawn and then additionally with the open area patio if that was not to be concluded. But to answer your question why it doesn't go all the way back. It's just more, it's likely not going to get any sun. And I think the asphalt on the backside there should, the biggest thing we've learned from the fire department is they need 360 access so they need to be able to park their truck and run all their equipment and everything back. I didn't necessarily want to give them all lawn to have to do that. So we extended it as far back as we thought the eye could see, essentially, and then turn it into the asphalt towards the back of the building.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it is, yeah. The whole parking lot is asphalt, correct.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Well, yeah, that's a car parked at that location. There's a dumpster back there, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: It would be electrical service provided. I mean, you know, they don't really let you liven it up. They just let you run the conduit. You would have, you know, the conduit coming up within our mechanical room somewhere. And, you know, should we get to the stage of installing chargers, everything is laid in place. You don't have to dig up the asphalt. You just sneak the wire across and plug in the charger.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think we talked a couple of times with Alicia, because I needed some clarity on that. I didn't see any specific ordinances. And I thought that the best solution would be provided, suggested by her, which I thought was great, was at least run conduit until we determine what that needs to be. Absolutely. So that was my solution for it for now.
[Zac Bears]: David, I've actually talked to the state about some grant programs as well. Yeah. So they're willing to pick up the tab on a lot of this. So definitely open to that.
[Zac Bears]: Oh yeah we agree.
[Zac Bears]: No, they actually been working with Eagle Brook, our civil engineering team on the stormwater management design. They've seen this already and are privy to it, but no, their standards are pretty normal stormwater management, all stuff that gets flushed out in permitting. If we're allowed to demolish the existing building actually we have to put in, we have to get a stormwater management plan and permits.
[Zac Bears]: I think at the very least, you know, in the next plan, we can provide what the traffic department had suggested as the mitigating efforts. You know, we can list those out and put them on the plan.
[Zac Bears]: That's correct.
[Zac Bears]: Solar requirement, yes.
[Zac Bears]: No, this is super helpful. some roundabout way what we were trying to get to. I appreciate all the board's time they took tonight to help lay these things out with us. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: You can see professional designers and engineers.
[Zac Bears]: Can you get rid of rendering and provide detailed elevations of proposed building?
[Zac Bears]: I would welcome that process. It's obviously various steps in the design build process. So I'll give many iterations of this thing. And the more I could stay on top of it and engage you guys, you can help me understand exactly what you might need for more detail. I can put it on the onus of the landscape architect and the engineer to provide that, so that we're not wasting your time for these meetings.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, he kind of gave that or at least some guidance in his letter. Obviously, it's pretty detailed. And then, yes, he offered two paths of solution. And I think our engineers can, you know, final contact him and say, what do you think about this? Is this, you know, we tried to work with what you provided us in context. And if he gives it his blessing, maybe he can provide a letter of support.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and we're committed to that. I certainly will do that. And it just becomes at what point, and I'll do it to whatever satisfaction Director Blake feels appropriate. I just know from experience with dealing with them in the past, but that's all.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, the only, so the sidewalk design right now is five foot. I think the minimum is four and a half. So the sidewalk is five, which leaves us nine and a half with a six inch curb. Sure, sure. Unless the sidewalk gets increased and more, but I still think we can make it work.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so this list, basically A through O was all generated by me based on the last preliminary hearing we had. And I just gathered your notes and I did meet with Brian and we talked about it and his preference was not to have a landscape buffer on that side, given that they own that section of property as well. And so we just included it on the front side, on the side facing the building. So that was the context behind that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, as long as we can meet the, I know the parking standards were already, so they require, I think, what was it, 19 feet in the depth, and I think we're 18. So the traffic already called that out, but said it was permissible and acceptable by his interpretation. If we put a landscape buffer in there, we would shrink those parking spots, I believe. But worth noting, and if we can do it.
[Zac Bears]: Sincerely, I know this was a process, unique circumstances in this particular case and we appreciate all your time and consideration.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to waive the remainder of the reading in favor of a short presentation by the petitioner.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Miss Cuddy, or over the public hearing any questions for Councilors by some bears, Madam President, could we have the city engineers with us could be described the conditions on the petition.
[Zac Bears]: I think he's here in person.
[Zac Bears]: I was chairing last week, so I don't know if I made my view on this clear, but to be quite frank, I think that the business model here is incredibly exploitative and not the kind of business we should be encouraging here in Medford. So I'm not supportive of this petition. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thank you, Attorney Blake. So social economic benefits, or so only if there's an exceptional benefit, can we make an exception, not if we believe there's an exceptional cost?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, and just from your reading of it on other points, I mean, it's not past it, so I assume we can't use it as justification now, but our comprehensive plan, I believe, has items in it that advocate for an increase in the number of good paying jobs in the community. If the council were to believe that these jobs were not good paying jobs, would that be a justification for the denial of a special permit?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and then just last, I believe you mentioned environmental concerns. This lot is in proximity to a wetland, and it would also mean an increase in the number of vehicles and particulate emissions in our community. Would that be under the environmental section a justification for denial?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, well, then I have a few reasons to deny it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. It just sounds like the steps forward. the range of steps forward, obviously, I have a position on it, Councilor Knight has a position on it, Councilor Scarpelli has a larger position about it. General legal counsel, one would be to move forward tonight, which I think Councilor Knight seems to be of the mind. Well, I mean, I'm thinking, why don't we close the public hearing, we've got 90 days to figure it out, right? We've got three months to figure it out, and at that point, we have to take a vote on it. I think the other thing we could do is refer it to a committee of the whole to have the kind of discussions that Councilor Scarpelli has talked about having in the past, like we have had on other items where we could come to some sort of you know, could reach a consensus, maybe there's a majority that wants to move forward, maybe there's a majority that could agree to a reason to deny it. You know, I think those are two options. It also sounds like we could continue the public hearing and make that decision at a later time while we seek additional information such as traffic study.
[Zac Bears]: But the 90 day window doesn't start till we conclude the public hearing. Is that correct?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I'm sorry.
[Zac Bears]: I moved to continue the public hearing referred and refer the paper to a meeting of committee of the whole with legal counsel and traffic and transportation director Blake.
[Zac Bears]: Just as cars will be parked. I think that's not entirely.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Yeah. I mean, I'm taking comments there.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think it's necessary, but feel free to include it.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I noticed in here, this is 19 Salem Street. This used to be Medford Electronics, John Costa's location. I saw that was a transfer in here. So you're gonna be repairing small electronics and selling mobile devices and stuff like, is there, you know, I hadn't been in Medford Electronics for a while. Is that significantly different than what Mr. Costas was doing? Yeah, it's significantly different. With the sales?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli, if I may suggest, not go to the same meeting, because we may be waiting for a traffic study at this point.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. There's an affidavit and a policy number. Three pages. Yeah, four pages for the back and search your halfway guard.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: I'll call for a roll call vote.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Director Hunt for bringing this forward. I think something this council has been incredibly focused on is expanding our capacity when it comes to planning development and housing support. you know, on larger issues, but this seems to me to be an area where we need more staff support. I'm supportive of having a senior planner position. I think we need more people working in planning and economic development. And so I'm generally supportive of this. My main objections to how these were being proposed in the past was that they were not coming with an appropriation request. And that seemed to me to be in violation of Massachusetts general law. This has come to us with an appropriation request. So I am of the mind to approve it. But again, I think when we're talking about having a comprehensive plan, talking about having a new zoning ordinance, talking about the sheer volume of great things that are gonna happen to this community because of the work of this council when it comes to our zoning recodification, I think it makes a lot of sense that we have the staff in place and planning to make sure that all of that fruit and labor can come to fruition as quickly as possible. So that's why I'm in support of this tonight. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: When it comes to fiscal stewardship, when it comes to this council doing its work and holding the administration accountable, sure, we've taken some votes in the past since June 30th to appropriate certain funds. We've taken some votes not to, we've taken some votes to table things, we've taken some votes to approve things. In the totality of that, I think all seven of us have been incredibly clear about what we want from this administration and our demands for basic transparency and accountability. I think we've also been focused enough to take things on a case-by-case basis, look at the merits and the benefits and the costs of a specific case, and also factor that into our decision-making. There are a bunch of papers on here tonight where we're gonna have this conversation. Again, it's the next paper, it's the, maybe not the paper after that, but it's the, and then, you know, there's like three more papers in the next, you know, however long it takes us, but we're gonna continue to have this conversation about finances and about caps. The next one, even the mayor's own attorney says needs five votes. So that one's not happening tonight. If it seems, you know, I don't wanna call a vote before we've called it. So we're not just giving a blank check. We're not just saying yes to everything. This is actually an opportunity for us to help address the human resource nightmare that Councilor Knight is talking about. In a functioning government, this would be a no brainer. A mayor would come to the city council. Well, thanks Siri, probably Googling no brainer. a fully functioning, communicative, collaborative government, a mayor would come with this request to not appropriate new funds, not transfer funds from one department to another, but to adjust funding within an existing department to make sure that we can hire or keep a current staff member at a slightly higher position, a senior planner, and then hire someone to replace them in their current cap 12 role. That should be a no-brainer. We shouldn't even be having this argument. Now we know why we are having this argument, because it's not a no-brainer, because the collaboration's not there and the transparency's not there. I accept all of that. I think we're going to have that conversation I think there's going to be votes where we try to hold the administration accountable later in this meeting. But I think on this specific issue where this person will be doing the work of implementing the good work that we've done. where we're not appropriating new money, where we're basically saying, so we appropriated a land use planner at CAF 13. It turns out we're probably gonna be better off having a senior planner at CAF 14, and then someone at CAF 12. That's not not holding the administration accountable. It's not being a poor fiscal steward. The money's already been appropriated. No new money is going towards this. You know, this one to me is one that I'm okay with. There's plenty of other things that have happened that I'm not okay with, and I think in this case, the specific case facts of this issue merit approval. Maybe the next paper doesn't, but that doesn't mean we're not holding strong, that we're not trying to do whatever is within our power to make sure that this administration is accountable and that the people of Medford have the information that they need. So I would move to approve this paper as well as to, yeah, I would move to approve this paper.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I think Councilor Carballo's point is well taken. And that's when I, my point was earlier about a fully functioning administration, right? Again, this should be a no brainer. This should be procedural and it's not. And the reasons for that are myriad. I can say there's one office that does respond every time I call, and there's one office that has been coming down to our council meetings at Beck and call, you know, and it is the PDS office we've met on comp plan we've met on housing production plan we've met on climate plan I think we're working on the housing trust the housing stability ordinance so right, you know, I agree with you, city government and administration should work where it comes from the top down. This is working in spite of the failure. And that, you know, it sucks to say, but you know, that's a reason I can support this. This office is working well and apparently working well in spite of a lot of other issues. So I think this is gonna help us have the resources we need to continue the work that we wanna do when it comes to planning and development. And I'll leave it at that. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Is the position spoken for?
[Zac Bears]: This is actually the change of the personal ordinance relative to the CAF 14 senior planner position. So the appropriation has been tabled, but this is the CAF. There's an appropriation on, it'll be for first reading. We could then consider it for final approval at the following up meeting when we have the financial paper currently tabled by rule 21.
[Zac Bears]: just to your point, President Morell, that it's kind of, I don't think city government should work on a whim, right? It shouldn't be, oh, yeah, I'll get them out. It's just like, there should be a plan and the plan should be implemented and it should be reviewed and approved and corrected before it's, that's, I can't believe it.
[Zac Bears]: out there as my suggestion, I would propose a B paper to request that the finance director so part of the email that we sent us that the finance director feels like he could present a first quarter report in mid November, and that place warrant articles on the on the city council for based on the formal acceptance on a monthly basis based subject to their formal acceptance by the council their certification by the city clerk's office. So I would be paid propose a B paper to request that the finance director attend our November 22nd meeting to present a first quarter financial report and revenue comparison with prior fiscal year and revenue forecasting for fiscal year 2024. and further request that the finance director take whatever steps are necessary to place Warren articles on the council agenda for formal approval on a monthly basis beginning in November.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Councilor Collins said it incredibly well. I read this email, it says preliminary first quarter reports can be provided by mid-November. This office can also provide revenue comparisons with the prior fiscal year. Warrant articles pertaining to city funds can be provided on a monthly basis subject to their formal acceptance by the council and certification by the clerk's office. I say we take the guy up on his offer.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Well, I'm just saying that if he, if we want to go back to a regular system where we actually are voting, like this seems like the fiscal compliance that we would like to see. So let's take them up on their offer. If they can't meet it, then we pass the first resolution.
[Zac Bears]: just after first quarter financial report, um, at revenue comparison with prior fiscal year and revenue forecasting for fiscal year 2024.
[Zac Bears]: Makes the whole meeting work. No, but thank you, Madam President, for reading that resolution. We've had a lot of conversation about the proposed bus network redesign. I can first say that I believe that Medford Hillside was the number one neighborhood in the entire MBTA catchment area in terms of comments. So for the anger and frustration of residents who are deeply opposed to changes, that is good news. I've also, I haven't seen a draft map. I have not seen any draft routes. I have heard rumblings that there will be improvements to the Medford map, which I think is a good thing. But it's definitely important that residents continue to stay actively engaged with the process. So please attend the November 2nd bus network redesign meeting via Zoom. And again, this does ask the city administration to notify residents about that meeting and especially communicate with all of the residents who submitted their contact information or comments or however else they communicated their issue to the city government. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. There have been a number of issues regarding see quick fix. I don't have to get into, but one of them has been that items that require the input of the traffic commission may not be being properly referred to the traffic commission. So people asking for signage or asking about specific conditions on a public way that needs to be updated or addressed. They may be going to the police department or to DPW. They really should be going to the traffic commission as it's in the traffic commission's jurisdiction to make those changes. It's basically a question of how they get marked as resolved on C-Click Fix. They're not getting marked as resolved and referred to traffic commission. They're just not really, they're just being marked as resolved or referred to a city department. And those departments don't actually have the final authority on those items. So it's just a request that the city administration update how they're referring items using C-Click Fix. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Let's do that.
[Zac Bears]: Even Amy Coney Barrett didn't shoot it down, so we might have a chance on this one.
[Zac Bears]: That's actually in Somerville.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it's nuts.
[Zac Bears]: At Winchester. Yeah, I looked at the map.
[Zac Bears]: I was just gonna add, it is the traffic commission. The city adopted a law in like 1958 that all parking, signage, traffic related decisions are made by the traffic commission. You can access them through Alva Erickson at the police department. You can also go to the director of traffic and transportation, Todd Blake, and that information is on the city website. My guess is it's probably has a lot to do with what counts and I just said it also maybe is this the section of Harvard Street where folks are parking on the sidewalk. Oh yeah, it may be about that it may be a new update, relative to that, not being a practice that they want to encourage again I don't know, I wasn't at the meeting their minutes you should also be able to get traffic commission minutes to tell you when the decision was made and what the discussion was about.
[Zac Bears]: Generally, just to that point, certainly individuals can kind of start or push for changes to be made. Something that is traffic commission policy is that if you could get 50% of the people on your street or on a certain section of your street to sign a petition, they will generally reconsider or at least look at reconsidering or look at making a change, a positive, you know, reconsidering a change they've made or looking at a different change. Again, I did bring up the sidewalk thing because it may be a safety thing and it may have been past practice to just let it go. And that may have changed, but traffic commission generally, and you'll want to talk to director Blake when Nicole connects, President Morell connects you with them. There is a petitioning process for the traffic commission where they generally will look at things like that.
[Zac Bears]: That is actually how you get permit parking right now in the city. 50% of the residents on your street will sign a petition. I had to re-register my car, so yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think there's a statutory requirement for notification.
[Zac Bears]: There are specific rules for parking in public lots during snow emergencies. Outside of a snow emergency, I would say that follow the rules. I can't.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just trying to park. No, I hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Best advice is to follow the rules as posted. And that is a fair point.
[Zac Bears]: Nice to meet you too, David.
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely. If you have any questions, feel free to jump in at any point. I would like to just give a little background of what we're doing.
[Zac Bears]: That's great. And so just a little bit of background about myself. I've been working on Mystic Avenue for the last 20 years started when I was in high school, part-time property manager, just painting and picking up cigarette butts. And so after college, I went full-time. And the properties I manage are 134 Mystic Ave, 142 Mystic Ave, 151, and 215. And so I also help out at Murray Supply, as actually my great-grandfather was Murray Matrendola's original partner at Murray Supply. I've been on Mystic Ave for 20 years, and I love really the direction that it's going in, and I feel like this project can really help. But right now, the site is made up of heavy automotive use. We have an auto body shop there, we have a mechanic, we have Eastern bus with the school buses, and then we have a tow yard really for the city of Somerville. Deep down, I always thought this was not the highest and best use for us. I've been searching for a project that made sense. And I started this in 2019 and picked up a lot of traction and COVID never happened. I like to think that we'd be open by now, but it didn't. And so we ended up re-upping the tenants that we have here now. And during that time, I've actually went out and found this great group. And so there's five other investors, as well as myself, that are a part of this team. And we've got Capital One backing us on a 7A loan, as well as the landlords that are committed to building the base build for this building. And so The concept is if you've been to a modern day brewery, a night shift, a Trillium, well, they all have tap rooms of some sort, a tap room where you can actually enjoy the beer that they're making. Some of them are made up of a bar, some of them are made up of picnic tables inside, some have made them outdoor, indoor. And so our idea really is to take that tap room and really just make it the star of the brewery. our concept, meaning that we're not going to be brewing any of our own beer. And we couldn't really do this about 10 years ago just because the craft beer movement hadn't happened yet in Massachusetts and New England. And so over the last 10 years, we've seen Trillium and Night Shift really started. But there's also great breweries out in Western Mass, like Oak Home, that are doing so well. And they've really become these really nice neighborhood spots where I like to think there's really something for everyone there. you know, during the daytime, you see a lot of families go there, you know, bring the kids. And then as you go into the night, you see, you know, younger couples or families go and then into the night, you see, you know, your, your, your late twenties, 30 year olds, you know, enjoying themselves, but and we're going to have a really nice indoor area. That's going to have, it consisted of these long tables. We're not going to actually have a prototypical bar because our motto is best brought together. And, If you've ever experienced Oktoberfest in Germany, it's really just long tables and people getting together and complete strangers just enjoying a beer and having fun. And that's the type of atmosphere that we want to create. We also want to have some really unique outdoor space on an outdoor patio. That's going to be about 4,600 square feet. So it's pretty big. We're going to have outdoor games such as bago and all that. The site is big enough to do all this. It's just over 2 acres and our base building is about 20,000 square feet. Outdoors, 4600, we're going to have a mezzanine level of. About 1500 square feet indoor about 2600 square feet of outdoor. We were hoping to attract a lot of private events. from local Medford businesses, Somerville, Cambridge, all that.
[Zac Bears]: If you want to share my screen. Let's do it. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Can you see my screen? Yeah. Okay. This is the site as is right now. Can you see this? Yes. Okay. This is night shift, but let me cut to the good stuff. Well, this is a floor plan right here. Here's the first floor. As you can see, we're going to have the beer stacks and the food towards the exterior, the perimeter, and then the interior is going to be made up of tables. Here is the outdoor patio on the left and the indoor mezzanine. But let me get to the visuals. So right here is our patio from the Mythic Ave view. And you can also see the outdoor mezzanine that we're gonna do. Any questions?
[Zac Bears]: It is relatively flat right now, but there will be. Michael Giuliano, our civil engineer, is working on that. Are you asking about the current condition of the site? what we'll be building? Both. I think that we have an existing site plan as well. Yeah, it's relative. I mean, right now it's the parking lot, so it is pretty flat. But yeah, that will be provided full schematics when we do apply for our building permit.
[Zac Bears]: Let me go back and show you. Yeah, so right here is the, we bumped out the site to accommodate the buses. So we're going to go back to the original boundary line, but this is where It is going to go right now it's it's really it's flat and it will be a flat parking lot for where the where the where the parking is going to go for this and the bottom right hand section, there will be like a loading.
[Zac Bears]: We can do a better job of providing you with some additional lighting. But I believe Michael Giuliano's plan is to put some of the stormwater right here where the building, the current building is, that's going to be demoed. and there's going to be a tank underneath there.
[Zac Bears]: Are you talking about the building that's currently there?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. I'll take a look. We were going to do a standalone retail building that we're not going to do anymore. We're just going to make a parking, but I don't know if I, I'll make that clear for our meeting.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, we're not going to do that we're going to be a parking.
[Zac Bears]: Uh, let me go back. Okay. So it's going to be a parking lot. Um, so right now it's going to go back. The red space is the approximate boundaries of the 142 Mystic Ave. And where that bump out is goes into 134 Mystic Ave.
[Zac Bears]: No, it's not the same property. We're going to go back to the original property lines for this. OK.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we're also working with the state on on a couple of of the HVAC incentives out there to do the you know the ductless systems and so yeah that we're we're talking to everyone and We're talking a lot of different groups right now about doing a lot of that, especially the car charging stations right now that the state's pushing.
[Zac Bears]: Keep the bills down. That's the key.
[Zac Bears]: And we own other parcels on Mystic Ave. And so I am always looking at it to increase the value of not only that, but our neighbors as well. And what I really like about this project is our peak hours are when Mystic Ave is really at its slowest. Right now, like, if you go there on Thursday, Friday nights, there's not a lot of people driving down the gap because there's not a lot of destinations. It's very heavy industrial 9 to 5. And I think this project really checks a lot of boxes in terms of helping the city. I mean, right now, there's just a tow yard for the city of Somerville. It doesn't really have. It doesn't really do much for now. We don't need that at all. Exactly.
[Zac Bears]: Is there is there like a buffer, like footwise from the you know, the your neighbor that you need to have? Is it grass, is it granary, is it trees?
[Zac Bears]: I mean, the only issue I see with that is we don't want people being able to walk off with drinks. We just want that confined area. Sure. Yeah. It's more of a safety issue on our end, liability.
[Zac Bears]: We didn't want to put the patio right up against Mystic Ave just because there's cars and trucks daily passing. It's still heavy industrial, but we're hoping it changes over time. But I wouldn't want to be drinking a beer and having fumes in my face.
[Zac Bears]: The parking is so valuable. Some of the complaints from the neighbors are, are we going to have enough parking here? And we have 126 spaces. We think we have plenty, but we think the parking is so valuable here. Then a park that would just be open to the public. I don't think that's feasible.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think there's, I know we meet it, but I don't think the parking requirement is a lot with the Medford guidelines. I know there's restaurants on Main Street in Mystic Ad that don't have any parking, but.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. So the fun inside is really in the interior of the space while the, I'll go back to the floor plan. So if you look at the floor plan here, the interior is really what drives the space. And so, the exterior is going to be the food, the beer stalls. There's really not a huge opportunity for windows along the sides, but where the patio is, absolutely, we're going to have as much windows as we can there on both floors. But we will have windows on almost like the second level above the beer stacks. But if you're sitting inside, you're not going to be like, looking through a beer stack out the window, if you know what I mean. Everything is around the perimeter, so all the seating is in the interior. OK, got it.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, on the exterior, you mean?
[Zac Bears]: We're open to that, absolutely.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, okay, I see, okay. Yeah, yeah, we can, windows on the outside.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, yeah, I totally understand that.
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely, yeah. We're going to have two food options as well. Snappy Patties is going to have a burger, one of the food options. The other one's going to be pizza.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, it's going to be permanent. So snappy patties, yeah, will be permanent as well as the pizza. And then we're going to have for the outdoor, we're going to have some food trucks come in and service the outdoor. But so that will be obviously rotating.
[Zac Bears]: Right. We can see where these parking spaces are. So right here.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just overall thoughts. I mean, do you guys like this for the site?
[Zac Bears]: So, I just want to add 1 thing our. Our small business loan is going to be contingent on us. Like, getting through this meeting on the 26th, if we don't. Get through it, then this meeting, then if we don't get past, then we're not going to qualify as. the landlords are going to just exercise the options with the tow yard and the bus yard, and it's going to remain that way. So I know I have some work to do, but that is a contingency for our small business loan.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, I can prepare that.
[Zac Bears]: What's that?
[Zac Bears]: I guarantee it's double and it's going to be a lot better paying jobs than what's there now, but I I'll have now all that information for you.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. Thank you. Thanks, David.
[Zac Bears]: I think it's a great idea.
[Zac Bears]: Draft comprehensive plan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Just to confirm a couple of things, I think most folks by now are familiar that there's going to be four ballot questions statewide, which we'll be considering, but I also noticed that there were two ballot questions here that are non-binding that are local ballot questions, questions five and six. I just wanted to confirm that questions five and six will be on the ballot in Uh, are they in every district or they're not in every district? Could you tell us?
[Zac Bears]: Could you say which ones there?
[Zac Bears]: So that would be in the Barber District and the Donato District?
[Zac Bears]: OK, so question 6 is just not on the ballot in the Garbally District.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And then could you just let if you have it available, let folks know when early voting is going to be available and where it will be available.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And then my last question is on mail balloting. I know it's a little different for the general versus the primary. So for the general, if I'm correct, and correct me if I'm wrong, ballots will be accepted as long as they're postmarked by Election Day.
[Zac Bears]: Senate President motion to revert to the regular order of business.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I think the resolution is relatively self-explanatory, but this is Italian Heritage Month, and it's obviously a time to celebrate the contributions of Italian and Italian-American people to our city here in Medford. As we know, Medford for a long time has had a vibrant Italian community, a place for immigrants from Italy to come here, and then for many generations to raise families, and we can see the impact in our business community, government, culture, everywhere in our city. And I think it's a great time to recognize Italian Heritage Month. So I would motion to approve and to join with Councilor Tseng's paper 22-525. Thank you, President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Sal Bono was a state senator for several years, representing the second Middlesex District, which is followed by Senator Shannon who we recognize on an annual basis thanks to Councilor Knight and Senator Jalen, who currently serves in the seat. While he was a senator, prior to that, he was an alderman in Somerville, involved deeply in the Somerville community activism around building highways and preventing highway construction, improving schools, and building community in Somerville, then went on to win a sticker campaign, a write-in sticker campaign to serve as senator for several years, worked on major legislation, as noted here, around funding public education, supporting seniors, improving community health, and generally bringing his experience as a family man, businessman, and community activist for the benefit of everyone in this district. He passed away a few days ago, and his wake was yesterday, and there's going to be a memorial service next year. I encourage folks to take a look at Senator Jalen's Facebook page, where she issued a much longer memoriam kind of history and memorial statement. But he served our community well, and I think it behooves us to honor him and send our condolences to his family and friends. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilor Collins, for putting this forward. I know that Safer to School and Walk, Bike and Roll to School Day has been a major initiative of a lot of parents and volunteer activists in the community who have organized the day. And I just want to acknowledge all their efforts as well as say that we've been focused on the, you know, we've implemented now two Safer to School programs. We've received grants from the state to implement it. It's a real priority. and I think it would go really well with the city taking on a Vision Zero plan to prevent injuries and fatalities on our streets, which is really essential. It's very important to me personally, and I think important to anyone really anyone who's ever been on a street and knows that the dangers that folks face. So we've put forward a couple of resolutions around a vision zero plan. Also haven't received a response to those resolutions. So just want to, seems like we've got some Councilors down here. Thank you. But you know, I would really like to see a response from the administration around a Vision Zero approach. There's federal grant money available to implement Vision Zero. And I think that would go along with the spirit of this resolution. So thank you, Councilor Collins. And I second the motion to approve.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, perfect, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, thank you. If we could just amend it to say that he was born on March 7th, 1889. Otherwise, he was a incredibly talented seven-year-old.
[Zac Bears]: Madam president.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to suspend the rules to take paper 22-532 as well as our public participation papers.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. It's come to my attention that residents on Sydney Street are facing some difficulties with the facility Budweiser facility, both temporary and permanent. There's some temporary changes that have moved a lot of idling trucks and things right into people's basically right across the fence from their backyard. You got folks looking, you know, whether intentionally or unintentionally, you know, you're looking right into people's houses. There's a lot of noise, a lot of, you know, just negative impacts on the residents of Sydney Street. And then also some long-term mitigation would be welcome. Basically all that the facility has said that they would do is they'll put up a, you know, kind of something on the fence, a solid barrier, which really isn't enough to mitigate the noise and, you know, other impacts of that. So I do know that we have some residents here who are interested in speaking on it, and hopefully we can communicate with the facility to get a little bit more support for those residents.
[Zac Bears]: Our city messenger is out tonight. So he would normally grab it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you to my fellow councillors. I think we have a lot of great options. I think we'll reach out to them and see if we can get something. If they respond to us at any sort of time, maybe we can get some mitigation done right away. Excuse me. And if not, we'll look at, things are just falling from the sky today. We'll look at the special permit and the fines. And I think Councilor Morell and Councilor Carpio's point about idling is a major point as well. So we'll see what we can do.
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: If I may, from the chair, just add a couple of things. One is that I can't remember when we filed. I filed it or we passed it, but we have requested that the traffic and parking decisions and rules and regulations actually be posted on the city website. They're currently not, which would be helpful. And then as pertains to these specific issues, if possible, Mr. Clerk, if you I think that maybe we'll get an answer since you haven't received a response. Maybe we will get one faster.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion on this petition? Any other folks who'd like to speak public participation is open. Please come to the podium.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I can tell you for a fact that the mayor is the person who signed off on it because there was an ARPA expenditure that basically we're using federal ARPA funds to fund this meter project. And she's decided that the council has no involvement in how those funds are going to be expended. So if it was approved, it was approved by the mayor.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Sarita. Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: Ian. There's a couple more items on parking that we can attach it to later in the meeting. All right, those were the two public participation.
[Zac Bears]: Again, this is public participation on any topic if you could just have your name and address for the record please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for bringing that up. I know that there should be rodent control mitigation, so I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli on that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Scarpelliio. President Morales.
[Zac Bears]: We don't have Larry tonight, but someone could write something up on paper and grab signatures. We can do it under suspension tonight. Sure. If you want, I'd ask Larry to pass it around.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean. So we can do it next week. All right, that's fine. That's fine. Okay, we can do it next week.
[Zac Bears]: Right, we'll follow up. We'll put a resolution on it and we'll follow up. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: We're still in public participation. Any further public participation from members in the chamber from residents in the chamber or anyone on zoom? Do we have any hands raised for public participation? Seeing none, any motions on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: So paper 22-466 loan order water meters. We pass this for first reading on September 13th. It went out for its second reading and the transcript advertised September 29th and it's eligible for third reading tonight, October 11th. This is the project to update all of the water meters.
[Zac Bears]: On councilor's motion to approve 22-466 for third reading, seconded by.
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in the affirmative, none in the negative. Motion passes and loan order is approved for third reading. Thank you. Any motions on the floor? We have anyone from National Grid? Yes. Motion of Councilor Knight to take paper 22-505. It's on a motion, we're under suspension, so. 22-505 legal notice petition for grant of location, National Grid, Inc. of North Andover, Massachusetts. You are hereby notified that by order of the... Great.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to waive the reading for a short synopsis by the petitioner of Councilor Scarapelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. If you could recognize our representative from National Grid, Mr. Clerk.
[Zac Bears]: Hold on a minute. I have to open the public hearing before we open. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: I have to open the public hearing before we answer questions, sorry. Public hearing is now open. People in favor of the petition. Is there anyone here in favor of the petition? Please give your name and address for the record. That'll be you, Diana.
[Zac Bears]: Anyone else here in favor of the petition? Seeing none, this portion of the hearing is closed.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: She said that the city is doing water work. They're getting out of the way. So the city water main works.
[Zac Bears]: Motion of Councilor at the table seconded by seconded by Councilor Starbelli. Motion to table is non-debatable. Ms.
[Zac Bears]: On Councilor Knight's motion to table, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, the motion is undebatable. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes to table. Is there a motion on the floor? Motion to revert to the regular order of business. Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 22-528 offered by Councilor Knight. Being so resolved that the city administration met its criteria in the review for the issuance of permit applications requiring traffic commission approval by also including considerations related to on-street parking impact. Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Knights, seconded by Caraviello. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour? Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. 22-529 offered by Councilor Knight. Whereas the sewage infrastructure on Fulton Spring Road in front of pass numbers 129 to 132 is faulty, resulting in frequent sewage backups, be it so resolved that the Medford City Council request the Mayor direct the DPW to monitor this infrastructure and provide periodic cleaning of the sewage lines on a no less than bi-monthly basis to prevent further damage taxpayer residents until such time that the underground infrastructure repairs can be made. Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Motion is withdrawn. Thank you, Councilor Knight. 22-530 offered by Councilor Caraviello being so resolved as the DPW Commissioner give a report on the status of the sidewalk repair and stump
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Caraviello seconded by second Councilor Tseng all those in favor. Opposed. Motion passes to do this 531 offered by Councilor Caraviello be it so resolved that the Director of Energy and Sustainability update the Council and residents of the newly agreed aggregate electricity contract.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, Mr. Clerk, if you could recognize Director Hunt.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions by members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any members of the public for public participation? come to the podium or go on Zoom. I see we have one on Zoom. Please give your name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Any further public comments?
[Zac Bears]: Director Hud, any further comments? On the motion of Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Tseng, to receive in place on file. To receive in place on file. Second. All those in favor. Opposed, motion passes. Next one was myself and President Morell, and then another one by myself. Do folks mind if I read it from here, or do you wanna? 22-533, offered by Vice President Bears and President Morell, be it so resolved by the Benford City Council that we meet in committee of the whole to discuss the scope of a contract for legal services to support ongoing work to update the city's zoning ordinance and a live set ordinance with the city's multiple active plans, including but not limited to the housing production plan, climate action and adaptation plan, open space plan, basically infrastructure master plan and draft comprehensive plan. The purpose of this resolution, we received funding at the last minute in the budget to continue our work with zoning consultants and we should meet to discuss the scope of that work and then potentially figure out what we need to do to bring in someone to assist us with the continued zoning work. Any comments, Councilor Tseng and then Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: The goal is to have this meeting on October 26th, so that would be in a couple of weeks. That's Godford Chevalier Day. It's Chevalier Day. Can't meet on Chevalier Day.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of council night to approve seconded by second councillor Caraviello. Hello. All those in favor. Aye. Opposed motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to suspend the rules. 22508-22540-22541 out of order. 508-540-541. Yes. On the motion councillor I'd like to take papers 22508-540-541 seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favour. Opposed motion passes. 22-508 legal notice City Clerk's Office notice of a public hearing with different City Council the public hearing in the Howard F. Alton Memorial Chambers 85 George B. Hassett Drive Medford and via zoom on tuesday october 11 2022 at 7 p.m a link to be posted no later than friday october 7 2022 on a petition from flex drive services llc aka lift up lily jobson agent is petitioning for a special permit 616 fellsway operations and 80 station landing aka 15 presidents landing parking Medford MA 02155, FlexDrive, aka Lyft hub petitioning for a special permit to park rental vehicles at 616 Fellsway in accordance with Medford Zoning Table A-H-3, motor vehicle related uses. Petition and plan may be seen in the office of the city clerk, Medford City Hall 85, George P. Hassett Drive, room 103, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155. Call 781-393-2501 for any accommodations and aids. City of Medford is an EEOAA 504 employer. By order of the Medford City Council, signed Adam L. Hurtubise, City Clerk, advertise the Medford transcript at Somerville Journal, September 29th and October 6th. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: This is a special permit. public hearing is now open to those in favor of the petition. Is there anyone here in favor of the petition? We're going to unmute you. If you're on Zoom, please give your name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: We're gonna say that you're in favor, then we're gonna see if there's anyone in opposition, and then we'll come back to you to present the full petition.
[Zac Bears]: You're not sure if you are. Yeah, so. Okay. I'll let you know after. Okay. All right. Seeing none, this portion of the hearing is closed. We'll go to the petitioner for now to mispronounce for a presentation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for the presentation. We're gonna go to the council. We'll go to Councilor Scarpelli, then Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, councilor. Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further comments from members of the Council? I have a couple questions myself. Just so I get this right, is FlexDrive Services LLC owned by Lyft?
[Zac Bears]: Is it a wholly owned subsidiary? Yes, so my question here relates to the business model. You mentioned onboarding of drivers. Are drivers employees of Lyft or FlexDrive Services LLC?
[Zac Bears]: Are the Lyft drivers you discussed, are they employees either of FlexDrive Services LLC or employees of Lyft as a corporation?
[Zac Bears]: They're independent contractors.
[Zac Bears]: Is there any guarantee that if a contractor, I mean, I just have some serious questions here. You're giving them the platform and you're renting them the car, but there's no guarantee they make the minimum wage. Is that correct?
[Zac Bears]: That's a yes or no question. It depends on how many hours they work. Give me a car and a job.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, let me rephrase this. What happens if a Lyft driver rents the car, but is unable to make the payment for the rental for whatever reason, because the income isn't enough from the app?
[Zac Bears]: What, you know, in terms of rental, do they pay a flat fee? Do they pay by the mile? Is it more competitive or less competitive than say, renting a car from Hertz?
[Zac Bears]: But I guess my question is, if they rent from you, is it cheaper than if they just rent it from any old rental company?
[Zac Bears]: OK. Well, I'll just leave my questions there. I have, again, some serious qualms about this kind Um, any further comments by members of the council Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Any further comments?
[Zac Bears]: My recommendation. May I take public participation? Sure. Take public participation. Please give your name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to table for two weeks by Councilor Scarpelli, pending legal review. Would you be comfortable amending that to request that legal counsel be present at our meeting in two weeks? If they could, that'd be great. Thank you. So on the motion to table for two weeks and request that legal counsel be present at our next meeting, seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes to table. Can we also make the same motion relative to paper 22-538? Yes. On the motion of Councilor Knight to table 22-538 for two weeks seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor. Opposed. Motion passes. What was our next one? 540. 22-540 to President Morell and honorable members of the Medford City Council. from mayor brand Lungo-Koehn re food truck permit for Medford Square meter project celebration date, October 5th, 2022 on behalf of the below entity, I respectfully submit the following requests for food truck permit in the city of Medford. In addition to city council approval vendors are required to adhere to health department food safety requirements. One Zach's ice cream truck, not mine. Date and time Thursday, October 20th, 2022, 12 p.m. to 3 p.m. location, Medford city hall parking lot looks like the West Rear parking lot event celebration of the completion of the Medford Square meter project about the event on Thursday, October 20th, 2022. The parking department will host an event to celebrate the completion of the installation of new meters throughout Medford Square. Thank you for your attention. This matter sincerely.
[Zac Bears]: It's about the event on Thursday, October 20th, 2022. The parking department will host an event to celebrate the completion of the installation of new meters throughout Medford Square.
[Zac Bears]: As I said, not my ice cream truck. I wish it were.
[Zac Bears]: Given the expected attendance, they could have gone to a stop and shop. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk, do we have a representative of the administration?
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to be the vice president. I don't know what you're doing.
[Zac Bears]: I apologize.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Schell.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: It's great. Thank you. Councilor Tseng that was great. Hey, well, and I just want to say one thing that petition sincerely brand a local current mayor. This is submitted to us by the mayor. Either no thought went into it, or this is before us because they wanted us to have a fight where then the parking department's mad at us because we didn't throw them an ice cream party. You don't have to have a food truck to have an ice cream party. You don't, you know, if you want to have an internal celebration in your department for the work that you're doing, you don't have to come to this council to ask us for permission to do it. So either no thought went into it, or this isn't intentionally before us to make us have this conversation that we don't want to have. I mean, and I don't know which one's worse to be honest.
[Zac Bears]: And I don't disagree with what everyone else said.
[Zac Bears]: They might be charging the parking department to pay for ice cream.
[Zac Bears]: He's going to do it for free. Well, no, I'm saying we don't know that they're not charging people to buy ice cream from the truck. And we don't know if this is for the employees, if this is for the city. 12 to 3. Who's around the 12 to 3? I'm just going to take it at this point. It seems like there's general consensus that we have no idea what's going on. Is there a motion on the floor? No one has any idea what's going on. Not to approve. Second. Motion to deny. Deny. by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. 22-541, to President Morell and honourable members of the Medford City Council, from Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, re-food truck permit for Harvester Energy Festival, date October 5th, 2022, on behalf of the below entity. I respectfully submit the following requests for a food truck permit in the city of Medford. In addition to city council approval, vendors are required to adhere to health department food and safety requirements. One, work hard, eat good, food truck. Date and time, Saturday, October 15th, 2022, 12 p.m. to 3 p.m. Location, Riverbend Park behind McGlynn Middle School, Medford MA. Event, Harvester Energy Festival. On Saturday, October 15th, 2022, from 12 to 3 p.m., we'll be hosting the annual Harvester Energy Festival. This festival is, huh? You want me to finish reading it or?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Collins. Is that a second or on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor. Opposed motion passes motion on the floor. Yes. We also have some folks here, maybe on a sign. So we'll do the traffic supervisor. Then we'll go to signs on the motion of Councilor Knight to take paper two, two dash five zero three off the table. seconded by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. 22-503 is personnel ordinance, a union contract with the traffic supervisors that has been agreed to by all parties. This was in city council September 13th, 2022 for first reading, advertised in the Metro transcript September 29th, 2022 for second reading and is eligible for third reading tonight. On the motion of Councilor Knight to approve for third reading, seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 16 affirmative, one absent. The motion passes for third reading, or the ordinance is passed to third reading. Paper 22-539, petition for a sign denial reversal, Needham Bank, 270 Mystic Avenue, Medford MA 02155. We have a petition before us for the reversal of a sign denial. It seems like we have some petitioners in front of us. If you could come to the podium and give us your name and address for the record, please, and give us a presentation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Caraviello and then Councilor Schell.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We don't have anyone from the administration on. No. Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: It is not a special permit.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to make sure the language is right. So motion that the 90 day review and that the sign, you know, sign with the business. Second. Councilor Collins. Okay. On the motion of Councilor Knights, seconded by Councilor Caraviello, as amended by Councilor Knights with restrictions. This is a motion to approve the petition for signs now reversal. Got a lot of affirmatives and negatives.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 16 affirmative, one absent. The petition for signed denial reversal is accepted.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thanks for sticking around. Motion for any motions on the floor. Revert back to regular order. Motion by Councilor Collins to revert back to the regular order of business, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Back to me. 22-534, offered by Vice President Bears. Be it so resolved by the Medford City Council that the Mayor, City Solicitor, and any other legal counsel report back to the City Council in executive session if necessary. regarding potential legal action against Reef Technology, Republic Parking Systems, Park Medford for breach of contract. Something we did learn in the parking meeting was that the parking director believes or seems to believe that there is a possibility that Park Medford, Reef Republic was in breach of their contract, but was advised by the city administration, the mayor and her legal counsel not to pursue a lawsuit to recoup our losses for that breach of contract. I would like to have that explanation given to us in more detail in executive session if necessary. Any discussion? Councilor Tsengre.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: And I hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Director Morrison said at a minimum $150,000 was her estimate of the minimum of what damages they left us with. She went to apparently and I think she said it in the meeting to the mayor and KP law or to the chief of staff and KP law and said, I think we should go after them because $150,000 is not nothing. And then KP Law said, I believe the direct quote from Director Morrison was, it's not worth it. Not worth it to who? And that represents the fundamental conflict of KP Law. It may not be worth it at KP Law rates, but it's worth it to the city if we have a city solicitor. And that's part of what I'm getting at here. If we're saying it's not worth it, but that determination is being made because an outside lawyer is charging the city more than we would, you know, then that's not in the interest of the city. That's in the interest of, the bill for KP law and that means that we're not getting the legal representation that we need.
[Zac Bears]: I would be happy to amend it to say that the mayor and city solicitor when hired.
[Zac Bears]: When the person who's supposed to be responsible won't take responsibility, what do you, you know? And I'm just saying, the person who decided to do this this fast and then brought someone on it to give them the resources to do it, is the mayor, and then she puts them out here to take the heat for the decisions that the mayor made. And now I'm editorializing from the chair, which I will stop doing. On the motion on, is there a motion? Motion to approve as amended by Councilor Seconded by Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. I'll give it to him. All right. 22-535 offered by Councilor Collins and Councilor Tseng. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Withdrawn. 22-536 offered by Councilor Tseng. Be it so resolved that the City Council asks the City Administration to reach out to residents about the Affordable Connectivity Program, which provides eligible households $30 per month off their internet bills. ACP eligible households can also receive a one-time discount of up to $100 to purchase a laptop, desktop, computer, or tablet from participating providers. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: And the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. I will not support the next one. No?
[Zac Bears]: 22-537 offered by Councilor Tseng whereas chapter 117 of the acts of 2022 entitled quote an act prohibiting discrimination based upon natural and protective hairstyles also referred to as the crown act which takes effect on october 24th 2022 prohibits discrimination against individuals in workplaces school associations and places of public accommodation based on quote traits that historically associated with race be it so resolved that the city council asked the city administration to review their equal employment opportunity and or anti discrimination policies as well as any other policies or codes that may limit or interfere with an employee's ability to wear natural and protective hairstyles update the council on review.
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. One of the main reasons this law passed was due to the actions of Mystic Valley Regional. And we send millions of dollars over there right over to Mystic Valley Regional. Yep, that's it. Charter School. On the motion of Councilor Tseng seconded by Councilor Scarpelli all those in favor. I was opposed. Motion passes. Sorry, any further items I missed anything. Jump around so much and it's like so long.
[Zac Bears]: Motion by Councilor Scarpelli to adjourn seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. Opposed. Motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, I found the records in order and I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve all reports of committees.
[Zac Bears]: I will be brief, but Mr. Carr definitely held a towering presence in the community, and I've been more than lucky to serve on boards with his children and also go to Medford Public Schools with his grandchildren, and I will leave it at that. He will certainly be missed.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I just want to thank Councilor Collins for putting this forward I think we've really seen the benefits of the local grants coming through the Medford Arts Council and we've seen them all across our city. Just amazing projects that have brightened sides of buildings and different properties, as well as, you know, a supported important I think really just want to drive home the point that you made that arts and culture has been one of the slowest recovering areas of industry coming out of the pandemic. My family has personal involvement in that, and really any way that we can support arts and culture, because we know it's so essential to vibrant economic development, vibrant community and cultural centers here in the community, we should encourage. So thank you for putting this forward, and I'd second your motion.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilor Caraviello, for putting this on the agenda. you know, in addition to what you said, you know, who is implementing the recommendations that came out of the cyber security analysis that we were told was such a dire issue as well. So, I mean, that goes right to your point. But, you know, we were told we have a serious cyber security problem. And as far as I can tell, there's nobody in that office at all. The website was down for a few hours earlier this week, which is a persistent problem. Earlier this year, the website was down for days and weeks at a time, which is not good when folks are looking for essential information and services from the city. And not to drive home a point that I drive home a little too much, maybe, but not only is there no one working in that office, we don't have any sort of idea what the capital plan is to invest in information technology and technology services across the city. The more that I learn on a weekly and monthly basis about the fact that we're purchasing an email contact system, but we're buying multiple accounts. So one department may collect contact information and another department may collect contact information. And when they email folks, you know, updates from the city, not everybody on both those lists gets the information. It's just, you know, really basic coordination problems that could go a long way to solving a major problem that we have in the community, which is community outreach issues and community education issues about initiatives that are going on in the city. We spoke about it recently about outreach on, I think maybe solid waste task force or something else, but the fact that these systems aren't integrated is a huge problem. We don't have an idea or an amount of money of capital that's gonna be invested in this, and now we don't have any staff that are managing it at all. So I'll leave it there, but thank you for bringing this up, and I hope that we can start doing better.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I've received similar calls. You would think that if it's truly a database problem, which I have no reason to believe it's not a database problem, but even if it's a database problem, then you have an entire street. And you're enforcement, and you go down the street, and every single car you pass pings as being ticketed. That should raise a red flag, especially if you already know you have a database problem. It should be practice that goes out to the enforcement officers to say, hey, we have some issues. There's been a couple of streets when we've gone down for permits that all the data was messed up. If you hit 10 cars in a row on a street, double no hold off come back and we were going to check if it's a database problem I mean there's kind of a simple check here that you could implement where if you have an issue in your database and suddenly you're ticketing 20 cars on the street which you know is abnormal because it's just not what your normal practice is going to be. That should, you know, raise a red flag, say we're going to hold off, we're going to come back, we're going to make sure the data is right before we permit the street. The other thing I want to add is that I've also heard problems on the flip side of this issue. There's some areas of the city where residents fought, you know, got the petition signed, went there, got the permit parking on their street, have had enforcement for months or years where Now, because the coordination didn't happen at the top level, the Medford police can't go out and enforce permit parking because they've never been trained on the license plate parking system. And so it's not just on the side of people are getting tickets that they shouldn't be getting. There's also streets that are now filling back up that are permit streets with commuters parking their cars, getting out of the car, walking to the train, walking to the bus. that should be getting tickets and it can't happen because the coordination between the police department and the parking department by the people who supervise both of those departments never happened. So, you know, again, I'm not disputing your resolution. I'll vote for it. You know, at this point, as Councilor Knight said, we know they're not listening to us. So, but there's problems on both ends of this. I think there are obviously solutions that can correct both of those problems. At least on the on the issue of the police have been told now we're going to go train the police on the system. So that's great. But it's again, there's serious coordination problems across all departments of government that are creating really negative outcomes for people who live here. And it's a management issue. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate President Morell's deference to say, you know, we can always do better. I think that's the attitude we should be having in the community. We could, you know, we could ask. send it in, you know, we can send it in embossed and engraved and certified mail letter to have someone come to this meeting. But this leadership team has gone above and beyond when it comes to getting out a monthly schedule, getting it in front of all the department heads, putting out a regular meeting schedule. You know, I work with the clerk on this and President Morell on this on a weekly and monthly basis to say, hey, you know, something that we hadn't done before, here's a month's worth. We're going to get you four weeks notice on some of these meetings. We're going to try to get out to you. I know Councilor Collins and myself and other chairs of subcommittees have done equal work to get information in front of people, to talk not just to the solicitor, but directly to people at KP Law. I mean, you know, I just want to be very clear that it's not a lack of effort on our end as to why we're not seeing people show up here to be part of our deliberations. And given what we've experienced really since June, and even before that, obviously, but especially since June, It doesn't seem unintentional. And I just want to say that, you know, we're not, we haven't stopped any of the things that we do to reach out and invite people to participate in a collaborative way as part of this process. It's just that when we reach out our hand, no one grabs it. No one shows up and people don't collaborate. And sometimes when they do come, they tell us, hey, we can't, we're not, we're not going to collaborate. That's been some of the most frustrating piece of this for me. is hearing, well, that's not our charge, or that's not our duty, or, you know, the council's working on too many ordinances. It used to be only did one ordinance a year. That has been stuck in my head ever since it was said out loud four months ago. Nothing changes if nothing changes, right? And we're working on change.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And Mr. South, thank you. I just want to be clear, and I think all of us were on the same page. should be at the management level, and it's a coordination problem when we're talking about these permits or these database things. If this has happened one time, why isn't the director or whoever it may be saying, we can't let this happen again, let's train our workers with the sufficient training to recognize this problem and not have it happen again. So I just wanted to add that to the record. I think we're all in agreement that there's coordination problems at the top levels that are causing serious issues.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And just to, we actually got something in our packet tonight that the ARPA Medford Square parking meters was $218,000. So that's what, at least that's what the purchase order says. I don't know if there's other meters. That may have been the request and that may be, there may be other, Yeah, there may be other projects, but yeah, I mean, there's a purchase order that things were purchased, like 218,000 in ARPA has been spent on the parking meter. So I just, you know, maybe there's future expenses coming. Just to Councilor Collins' point, I think it's really right on. It's, you know, as of right now, as far as I can tell, when we're talking about net revenue for parking, we're actually worse off under this system than we were under the Park Medford system. Park Medford said, world raise up to like 1.6 you know we'll do up to 1.6 million and then we keep it and then we start giving you portions above that now they use that and I may not have all the numbers in my head exactly right but you know now as far as I can tell we are spending more than we're collecting, at least so far. And it's a new program and it's getting up to year and there's a lot of reasons why that may be true. But I think the point is well taken that Councilor Collins made that when we're talking about scope and goals and why are we making the decisions that we're making. A, that fundamentally lies with the mayor and B, there was a parking policy committee that was established and made a bunch of recommendations Almost two years ago now, the recommendations came out, and a lot of those recommendations didn't have follow through. And instead of having a comprehensive plan for South Medford and the Green Line extension, we have a last minute proposal at the Traffic Commission that's really negatively impacting folks. And instead of having a piece of this report that came to us tonight, it's for tomorrow, is talking about how when the director, and we were talking about being set up to succeed or set up to fail, even when the director came in, who I'm sure is gonna be the person that is here to answer our questions, that the administration is expecting to take the blame. The director puts in this report, when I started in October, 2021, I was shown an office and asked what it needed to be a good working space. To date, none of the major things have been done. So the office a year ago that she walked into before she was the parking director, when she said, here's what we need to make this a workplace that's going to work for the functioning of this department, for a year, the request that she's made, I assume to the mayor who runs this building, have gone unheeded. So, you know, we can point fingers, we can say, oh, it's the, you know, We can try to cast blame, but at the end of the day, the buck stops at one person in the city. There's one person who manages everyone else in the city. We don't have the authority to tell any department what to do. We can talk about things and try to hold people accountable and make suggestions. But that power, as I've now said in a couple meetings, lies with the mayor. That's what our city charter says. And unless, I mean, we can Monday morning quarterback anything, but that's where the decision making happened that brought us to this point. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I just appreciate that the Mayor acknowledged that funding has been cut significantly.
[Zac Bears]: Can we get a short summary? Sure.
[Zac Bears]: And Madam President, just given the relatively limited scope of the changes, I think it may be, we may even be able to do it to her. We'd add this with another meeting on the same night and get two things done at once.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to, Mr. Clerk, can we confirm that they've received the comments that we sent them?
[Zac Bears]: If you've been here in June, you could have stayed till 2 a.m. But I just want to add two things. Thank you for coming out. If we're not letting you attend, it's a public meeting. Anyone can attend, and please register to vote.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, if I may. You know, a little more, whatever it is, three years ago or so, something that I noted was we were forming a lot of volunteer committees, a lot of volunteer task forces, a lot of volunteer beautification days, volunteer beautification projects. And I think at the time, I don't remember if it was in council or not, somebody noted that we have a lot of serious problems and it seems like the solution is to get someone to volunteer. I did not realize it was actually to the level of we have a volunteer building commissioner. I just can't believe that. I can't believe that.
[Zac Bears]: If I may, Madam President, Mr. Mayor, you know, when I hear today about receivership, it actually mostly doesn't, I mean, we have financial issues to be sure, and I don't want to downplay them at all. When I hear the conversation about state receivership or state input, it's not even a financial question. When I'm hearing it, it's actually about management and the functioning roles of government. It's not even, it's not just, oh, we have a 25% deficit. You know, it's not about being bankrupt. And again, I don't know. I actually haven't heard anything one way or the other, other than the word has been put out there and people have said it may be a possibility. Beyond that, I haven't seen a communication from the state. I haven't heard that the city has received anything. So, you know, I don't know any more facts than anyone else in this situation. But when I hear it brought up, it's actually a question of is the basic functioning of government being accomplished by the people currently running the city, not a question of the financial piece. Now, I may be, you know, again, I don't have a piece of information in front of me that explains what the conditions would be or why they would come in or what it may be. I'd certainly be interested in seeing something like that or hearing more details on it. Um, but yeah, I mean, it's I'm not hearing it as the city's bankrupt. So that's why they're coming in. I'm hearing it as you know, we have a labor problem and things aren't being released and we have volunteer building, you know, that's where that's the context I'm hearing. So I just want to put that out there. We certainly have challenges. We certainly have issues short term and long term around the budget, but that's not where I'm hearing any sort of state input in governance. I certainly, if I had evidence to the contrary, I would, I would share it.
[Zac Bears]: Who is the perfect response to that question? Yeah, I mean, the other thing is that the charter gives the mayor near unilateral authority over boards and commissions. Yeah, I mean, we talk about making decisions or not making decisions, and it seems to be it's another one where there's just not a decision being made. by the person who could.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, just want to take this opportunity really quickly, since we are here for the fall reconvening for the fall season. Just to say that I'm really looking forward to all of the work that we are going to be able to do. If you followed along the first nine months of this council term, we have passed the first new zoning ordinance in 60 years, we've updated our council rules, we've passed and looked at multiple other ordinances, and we've done, I think, very difficult work under very challenging circumstances to try to bring accountability around the budget and other things that are going on in this city. And I think that we are going to continue along that path. So I just wanted to say that in the spirit of collaboration and working together, I think that this term is going to be, while difficult, it will be productive. And if we're successful, we can bring some good positive change to the community. So I just wanted to say that before we got going. Thank you for your deference, and I appreciate it.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to take public participation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Maybe something you said really spoke to me. And it was team player. If this city is going to work, our school department is going to work from the top to the bottom, we need to be a team. And to be an effective team. Everyone has to have respect for each other, and everyone needs to be able to be honest with each other. If you don't have that, you're not gonna have the collaboration that you need to succeed. And what I hear every day is that people are scared to be honest in this building right now, that they're afraid to, that when they speak up, it's not gonna be, let's acknowledge that, let's take what you're saying and find the mistakes and fix the problem. It's that when you're honest, you're gonna be punished for it. And that's not right because that destroys any semblance of bringing a team together to get the work done that this community needs to get done now I know you're doing the work every day. But if we were working as a team, if you all felt like your voices were being heard. We can do things better. We can make things better we could make the city work better. I, you know, and I'm not going to compare what we've gone through to what you've been going through because you're dealing with it, day in day out all the time. But if you watch the budget process. Earlier this year, I think you'd know that that collaboration isn't happening with us either. For six months, this council said here are our priorities, here's what we think's going on here's our we're trying to be honest with what we would like to see action taken from this administration. And what did we hear back, either nothing, or what we're just going to do it our way. And in my way or the highway mentality is not going to get this city where it needs to be. So, you know, I share in Councilor Knight and Councilor Collins' frustration that all we can do, and not all we can do, but that our main role right now, at least at this point in time, is just being able to stand with you and try to be honest and sit here behind this rail and say what we think is happening. But I think we really have to ask some questions and it's about what is the plan? When someone says we can't support our workers because we have a financial problem, what is the plan to get us out of our financial problem? What is the plan when it comes to not being able to hire people to fill all these vacancies because people don't want to come here and work because they hear in the market, I know that there are people, you know, all the way in the South coast, you know, that when people are, when cities are hiring in the South coast, they say, don't worry, it's not going to be like it is in Medford. 60 miles away, 90 minute drive, they know it's bad here. They know what's going on. In this absence of leadership, I think it's on all of us to step up, and I'm happy that you're standing up, and I'm happy that all of the people in this room tonight are standing up for something better and stepping up, because if we don't do that, it's just gonna get worse. So thank you for being here. I'm thankful for your advocacy. I'm thankful for the advocacy and the trying to get the word out of everyone in this room on all the issues we may hear about tonight after you. I think there's a lot of people who wanna speak who share very similar views to what you're sharing. Because not enough people in the community really know what's going on and I think the more that they hear the more that they're going to be frustrated that the progress of our city is being put on hold, because, you know, the leadership of the city doesn't want to collaborate and work with its workers and its council and the residents to get things done. So thank you for being here. We all stand with you and we're going to do whatever we can.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Just a couple things to add on KP law. Number one, we've been requesting documentation on it for two years. The only documentation I saw was a completely blacked out invoice that was attempted to be used for backup for federal grants and can't possibly be, you know, it's determined by regulations can't possibly be used as backup for federal grants because it doesn't include any identifying information as to what the money has been spent on. So that's one thing that the only thing that I've seen out of KP law. I'll say another thing about KP Law, the minute that we voted to cut that budget was the minute that all hell broke loose. So I'll just leave that at that. When it comes to the funding piece, Mr. Jones, I appreciate you bringing it up. I do have a couple of things on the agenda tonight. One is to request that the administration provide an update on all pilot agreements and the status of negotiations on those. So Tufts University, Harvard Vanguard, Rivers Edge. And something I've been talking about for a long time and I think it's about time to get going on is budget needs assessment ordinance so that we can actually have a budget process where we are determining what our needs are, what our existing revenues are the gap and then talk about the plan to meet that need, because I think We can't keep using lack of funding as an excuse. We need to have a plan to bring in the funding we need to meet the needs of the community. So I do have some stuff on the agenda tonight. I'm looking forward to working with my Councilor, fellow Councilors on that. But yeah, when it comes to KPL, all I know is the only documentation we've received has been all blacked out.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Just two questions. One's for clarity purposes. Even though an impasse has been declared, I just want to make sure I hear what you're saying, that doesn't preclude, would you negotiate while you're waiting for a mediator to be assigned?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thanks. And the second question, You know, I've been following, I've been listening, we've been talking about this, we had a budget hearing, this came up then, we've had a lot of meetings about this, and you've had a lot of meetings about this, and everyone's had a lot of meetings about this, I think that's the one thing we maybe can all agree on. When you are talking about sustainability of the contract, and that's your characterization of it, what financial information are you being given by the city of Medford that you're making your determinations on? Are you being told what to expect next year from the budget? Do they have figures that are coming to you? And I think the real issue here, we're talking a lot about the different positions, we're talking a lot about the different offers, talking about 2%, 3% offers. At the end of the day, this is gonna come down to dollars, and the dollars in the budget, and what the school committee requests, and what is allocated by the mayor, and then what we try to move forward on. But we're not talking about any of this in dollar terms. So it's like actually having the answer, you know, what's the real, what's the real gap? Are you being told, this is your allocation next year, this is what you can expect to get from the city. And that's the limit on your contract negotiation? Or do you do we not even have the information? Are we going off of estimates? Are we going off projections? You know, what information do you have? that you're using to make the decisions to outline your bargaining position?
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate the answer. I appreciate that there's variables in the situation, but if you're making, let's say this, you have your projections, you're making your decisions based on your assumption that those projections are the best possible projection you can make at this time. And then you talked about variables that could increase revenue. You left out one key variable that could increase revenue. And that is that the mayor submits a budget and the mayor could commit to submit a budget with the revenue necessary to fund something. Now I understand it's a difficult position that you're in here. But, you know, this is a large city budget, things get reallocated there's a free cash you know we're going to certify free cash in September. So I just want to put the point out there that at the end of the day this comes down to dollars and cents, and there's only one person empowered by the city charter to make a commitment to use city funds to fund something like this, and it hasn't happened. So, when we talk about what You know, I think Secretary Rousseau mentioned last night that we are living in a system that's designed to have us at each other's throats because we have this false notion of scarcity that's being imposed on us by the state laws and regulatory systems we're under. We also do have choices. And I understand you're not in, you know, you're in the position that you're in, but whether we're talking about the needs of the students or the needs to fund the contract, There is a someone who could make a commitment as part of this process to make sure that the money is there and it seems that that hasn't happened and I just want to make that point very clear that that's how the laws of the city work. And, you know, we talked about sustainability. We are setting the conditions of what sustainable means. And the person at the top of the leadership of the city is setting the conditions of what sustainable means, and clearly, there's a vast disagreement that, or at least a general consensus that those conditions are unsatisfactory. So I understand that you're in the position you're in you're not the person who makes that choice. But when we talk about the variables we can talk all we want about hoping the state's going to come in and save us they're not. The chapter 70 formula doesn't benefit this city because our property values are too high.
[Zac Bears]: Just one sentence, the person who sets the capacity that we're talking about that determines sustainability is the mayor of the city of Medford, period.
[Zac Bears]: Madam, can I request an amendment? Can we take paper 22-504?
[Zac Bears]: That's fine, we can take it later, I just, the people here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Mr. Carter hello, Dr. Hunter have you finished your presentation. Okay, just wanted to make sure I just had one question for you myself. Do you know and I'm sure we're not going to have real figures until after an RFP and after the bid process comes back but the waste contract has been a major driver cost increase driver in the city budget over the last two decades. Are we looking at million more a year, 2 million more a year. Do you have any estimates from comparable communities around us?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. It sounds like we're gonna have a few more bites of this apple, so I'll leave my questions for later. Anything else? Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you so much, Director Hunt. 22-502 to President Nicole Morell and honorable members, Medford City Council, from Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Oh, do we need to vote on that? We do need to vote on that, yep, sorry. On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Caraviello to receive and place on file. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. And I will leave the reading of 22-502 to the president.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanna make a point, two points really. One, that I think that there's a lot of value to this position, but that we haven't received the response still from the city solicitor regarding CAF changes and chapter 44, section 33A that we requested in January. And I just was pulling out the green book to reread chapter four section 33 a, and I think it's gonna require a two thirds vote we don't know because we haven't gotten that opinion back so this just falls into that. Again, I would like I would vote for it. But if it needs a two thirds vote, and we don't know the answer to that because we haven't gotten the legal opinion for nine months, that's just going to put us in a position of uncertainty.
[Zac Bears]: So this is not a change to the land use planner. This is a new position.
[Zac Bears]: No, I withdraw what I just said I was reading the memo that we got was like saying that we have this position it's not so we would.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, then that changes this. For me, I don't think this section applies, but... You know, my point on the section does stand that it would be nice to get a response on that after nine months.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: All of that vote was to keep talking about it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Chapter 44, section 33A, no new position shall be created or increase in rate made by ordinance vote or appointment during the financial year subsequent to the submission of the annual budget unless provision therefore has been made by means of a supplemental appropriation. Given that there hasn't been a supplemental appropriation made to fund this position, I think 33A still applies. I would make a motion to request that we get a response to our questions from January on 33A That would be my first motion. Let me just table the thing.
[Zac Bears]: I think we should respect the chair and all just speak at once. Like let's let one person talk and then another person talk. My first motion would be that we again reiterate that we get the information that we need and the legal opinion on that chapter. And then since it's not debatable, I would make a motion to table.
[Zac Bears]: The motion is to ask once again for that legal opinion. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Only one person- Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, I think this speaks exactly to what all of us were just talking about around the labor relations situation in the city I want to speak specifically to two recent changes, where we've decided that this city administration, I should say because we don't have any voice in it's the city administration has decided to change horses and midstream on two major important projects. One of them being in the finance department around ARPA. We had an ARPA federal funds manager who was working for the city for six months, who had done extensive work on the process for the determination of the spending of the remaining ARPA funds. That person, as far as we know, was removed from her position for non performance related reasons. I do know that that position has now been filled. But we've had a gap of months where we could have been working diligently as a city on the process for spending our money and determining public input, and that has paused so you know, again as far as I understand it was not a performance related reason or disciplinary reason for the removal of that person. However, it has negatively impacted city operations. Secondly, we found out yesterday that there was a removal of the coordinator overseeing the elections. We just held a primary election that by all accounts went off very well using a new system that was created to streamline and simplify and make our elections better. We now have a general election in November. We've decided again during the middle of an election between a primary and a general election to change the leadership of the elections department. I think it behooves this council to send a resolution to the mayor that we are concerned by these and these specific decisions. And obviously, as we've spoken to tonight, there's deep concern that we all share around decisions on a wide range of labor issues. But I felt that it was important to propose this under suspension as we found out about one of these things. One of these changes after the deadline for the agenda was to be posted. Thank you, Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Just confirming, and this is all going to be paid back out of the enterprise fund. The bonds are just going to be paid back out of the enterprise fund.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it's the water and sewer bonds. It's not the general bonds. Right. Just for the public's edification. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: And thank you chief for being here for so long. Just confirming that this has been agreed to by the every all parties have agreed to this agreement and that's why we came to an agreement at the table.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: It's retro back to July 1st, so yeah, it's a little while. I'd be happy to amend my motion to approve and waive all future readings so that it doesn't move tonight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I think it's become very clear to all of us that the budget process and the information that's available to us and to the public during the budget process is insufficient. You know, it took this Council coming together to figure out about the structural deficit and the ARPA question and the free cash question and the FY20. Curry budget. And really the other kind of outstanding question that we kind of have partial answers to but not complete answers to is what is our, you know, what is our capital backlog. What are our operating needs. Part of me putting this forward as I was reading in detail the comprehensive plan draft and I submitted comments, and, you know, there's a lot of great stuff in there. We don't have the money for it. But what we should have is a plan to get there. And I think something that we can do as a council, while we can't change the budget process itself as that is outlined by state law, what we can do is add to it by making sure that the information that we need to make informed decisions and that residents need to make informed decisions is available to us so that I'll leave it there but the intent of this resolution is for our ordinances and rules subcommittee to meet. to draft a document that would allow us to, that would require that the city assesses operating and capital needs. And then we would have the information available to us about the difference between what we're currently spending, what we believe we need to spend, and then that obviously would give us the answer on what kind of revenue we need to raise through the many tools that are available to us. Thank you, Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. We haven't heard about pilots in a while. I know that some of our pilot institutions were maybe friendly to us during the pandemic, and maybe we decided to back off a little bit. I probably wouldn't have done it but, you know, these are large institutions that are entered into agreements with the city to provide funding to the community in lieu of the property taxes that they would otherwise pay. It's a significant source of revenue to the community. And I'd like to get an update on where we are with all of those I do know that At last update Harvard Vanguard across the street had used to pay a pilot payment and they just voluntarily kind of stopped doing that. It's right across the street, takes up a lot of land right in our valuable Medford Square has a parking garage that they don't allow the public to access that could benefit our parking needs. So that's just one of the several agreements or past agreements that I'd like to know if the city is still pursuing or engaging the stakeholders with. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, speaks for itself. I know that the public comment period on the initial draft just ended, so I'd be open to doing something sooner or later, depending on what we decide and what our schedule allows, but I do think we should take a look at this at some point. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. The Community Development Board is considering under our new zoning ordinance that this council passed after 18 months of diligent exceptional work. under the Dover amendment site plan review process. These projects two to four Capen street and 50 Winston street would be taking down existing more common single multifamily residential structures and building a larger multi-unit buildings. I'm not opposed to that. I think Tufts should and must do more to house students on campus to prevent the displacement of residents in the surrounding neighborhoods. However, there were a number of conditions. This is on Capen Street, we've heard of Coho Community Housing, we've heard of the Capen area. There were multiple decisions by the ZBA under previous processes in 2017 and 2018 that put multiple conditions on those projects and I want to make sure that the Community Development Board, who is now kind of taking over from the ZBA on reviewing these projects, at least to start, has that information before them as they review these projects in October. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the words of all my fellow councilors. And I had a cousin who got leukemia age five years old. and survived, luckily, thankfully, to the great treatment at Children's Hospital. It's a little bit of a turn, but another piece of this that I think I'm really, you know, I was at a public meeting last night talking about Life Science Park down on Mystic Avenue. And I'd like to think that maybe through our work, We can bring more of that those jobs and that research here to Medford and make an impact and then, you know, an additional Councilor Tseng said about the President's visit. There's a coalition. you know, not all the partners that you'd think of me bringing up traditionally, like big hospitals and big companies, but you know, it's called the Charm Coalition and its goal is to bring the advanced research projects agencies for health here to Boston, bring a lot of federal money here and really boost up even more the life science work and health work that's happening in the community. So maybe on a future agenda, we can support that effort as well. And I just want to say, you know, if this, you know, It's going to come through our plan community development district or commercial development district project process but I'm excited to see like cutting edge life sciences that could help address this problem here in Medford, I think that's. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, I won't belabor it too much but Councilor Collins is right on point. I mean, these are key issues and should be updated. But, you know, we have a real issue. It goes back to what we're talking about around the solid waste task force as well. We, not only do we have one director of communications and I know there's a posting for a temporary COVID communication director but that's not an excuse to not have things updated, and a director of constituent services, but it seems to me that when the planning and development department is doing a solid waste task force, they're out on their to do the outreach and the communication and the constituent services. So we have a director of communications and director of constituent services who work for the mayor, but do they work for the departments? We don't have a department of communications. We don't have a department of constituent services. We don't have an established group of people with the actual resources and time. I can respect director Hunt when she says all of us are salaried, none of us are hourly and we're volunteering to go out to what we can go out to. It's because we haven't dedicated the resources necessary to have a centralized department that assists all of the other departments in doing outreach and translation and website updates and email communications. I mean, to me, when I hear Director Hunt say we have 1,700 people on our newsletter, that's a success, but it's also like, but what about the mayor's newsletter? Why are we asking each department to come up with their own list and reduplicate all of the effort of collecting people and getting them on the outreach? Okay, I said I wasn't going to belabor it and I belabored it but it's it's just like planning and coordination, and a little bit of resources will go a long way. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Um, I am, uh, obviously, this is a congratulatory resolution for someone who has served the city in an exemplary way for many years. Um, Solicitor Scanlon has been solicitor basically as long as I've been on the council and was assistant assistant city solicitor for many years before that. We were notified that she's moving to a new opportunity and leaving the city after decades of service. And I think that's a huge loss for our city. We need a strong city solicitor and we were just able to finally to get the budget back for the assistant city solicitor position that had been gone for three years. So I congratulate Kim on her on her moving to a new position that she seems to be excited about. And I hope that we can find someone of similar caliber to fill her shoes, and the big hole that she's leaving in our city. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: While we're under suspension, motion to take petitions, presentations, and similar papers, and communications from the mayor.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, thank you, Max. And I don't know if Nick's on Zoom or listening in, or I know that he's probably excited for this to be voted on and approved. I had two questions. One of them was when do you open, so now I only have one, which is, is the lemon saison going to be on tap when you open?
[Zac Bears]: Just thank you for your hard work as a committee and Danielle for your hard work as coordinator. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for being here. Sounds like a big, exciting project. A lot of work ahead of you. I just want to confirm a couple things, just so I know exactly what we're talking about tonight. The letter says that there's the MWR loan portion will require an approved loan order from the city council, so that would be coming later that's not this paper tonight. And then my only other question is related to that. Do we know how much this would increase the annual water sewer bond borrowing amount by like how much more we'd be paying a year after we took out that loan order? Is that a question that we'd want to answer at a later date?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Yeah, that's fine. Just as we're starting the process, that's going to be a question I'll have down the road. This seems like it's has to be done. It has to happen. So, you know, I have no objections, but those would be my questions just considering the financial transition of the city. And I know this would be on the enterprise side, so it would be a little bit different, but just want to make sure we have everything in a needed place to actually fund everything over the 10 year period. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. You answered my question about the lifespan. So that's helpful to understand. Just to clarify what Councilor Knight said. So you want us to approve this paper tonight and that'll initiate the process and then you'll come back with the loan order or we have to approve the loan order before you get- The next meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so that was kind of where I was going. Our next meeting is September 13th. So just make sure I work with the clerk and the mayor in advance to make sure papers on the agenda.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Considering that I'd be happy to make the motion to send this to Committee of the Whole. And if we're gonna have a committee discussion on this further, then I don't have any further comment at this time. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to refer to a future committee of the whole revenue with the committee of the whole meeting with the mayor and her staff regarding the revenue situation and budget deficit.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, considering that this is the only substantive official proposal proposed by anybody to address the ongoing budget deficit issue. And it received an official response from the mayor, essentially validating its concerns, but not its scope. I think it's a starting point for the discussion that needs to be had. So that's why I would send it to Committee of the Whole. If the numbers change, the numbers change. We've been completely open We'd love to know the actual figures that we're in. I think we've been really consistent about that for the last eight, nine months that we would really love to know where we are and not be, you know, piecing together the information that we received piecemeal and trying to figure it out ourselves. But that's where we've been left by the actions of the administration. So, you know, if the numbers change, the numbers change. I have no problem with that. This is the only official proposal that's been made by anyone. The mayor did issue a press release that had some sort of response and well, can no longer move forward because the deadlines that passed for the November ballot, it is still a starting point for discussion and the closest thing we have to an official starting point. I do hope that changes in the future.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, all you have to do is change I think four words to make it unmoot once again, or sorry, eight words. So it's not really that the concept and ideas moot, it's that it's now been delayed to a future discussion. I'm happy to amend it to strike out the first paragraph and replace it with, you know, be it resolved that the Medford City Council request a meeting with the mayor and finance staff regarding planning for the ongoing revenue shortfall and
[Zac Bears]: We received a total of 48 million in the heart of money. about 20 million of that already to cover the deficit. And there's a formula in ARPA that says of the total amount you get, this is how much you can use to cover your budget deficit. We've already maxed that out. So this 20 million, I wish it was flexible enough that we could use it to address the existing budget shortfalls, although it's still one-time revenue and not actually a long-term solution to the problem. The issue, the remaining 20 million that they're talking about in that article, is essentially the money from the federal law that we can't use to cover the deficit.
[Zac Bears]: We can use it for a few specific purposes. Water and sewer is one of them. And that's we just discussed that and streets associated with it. policies to mitigate the COVID-19 crisis. One of the things that we approved and that the city did do In January, it was hire a federal funds manager who was supposed to look at all of the specific, very detailed U.S. Treasury rules and documents that outline exactly how you can spend the $20 million. We had a great person who was doing that work who was terminated, as I understand it, by the administration in July. So now we don't have the expert that we need to understand all of that.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And in what we were discussing, they are planning to use 700,000 of that towards the water meter project. So, you know, I think the survey is asking, what can we do with the balance of the money that... The city shouldn't be asking the public.
[Zac Bears]: Well, and you know what, that's... I know, it's not your call. We don't initiate that process. I understand that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think... Certainly the optics are not great. Obviously you made the point when you came up that the specifics are incredibly complicated and I think we've been trying our best over the last two months to take a complicated and opaque process and make it as transparent as possible and boil it down to the understanding of it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. As a resident of the Fellsway, I'm obviously frustrated and disturbed by what's going on. When I won't relitigate the fact that basically the city got no notice from DCR about this project and had no input over the planning. But when residents have gone up to foremen and folks on site, they have said, and I believe also folks at DCR, DCR has said, this is now standard procedure everywhere. We're putting asphalt everywhere. I mean, I think it's wrong. I'm just relaying that that's the answer that they're sending out there or that they're having their workers sent out there. If you look at the workmanship, it's a disaster. I mean, up and down the entire street, there are, you know, four, five, six inch drop-offs into dirt piles, asphalt adjacent to other asphalt that doesn't line up with it. You know, the only thing about the project that seems at all even compliant is that there's some better curbing in some places. But, you know, I think we're gonna end up with a project that's of a worse condition than when we started. And this is a multi-million dollar improvement project, or it's supposed to be. So I have no problem with this agenda. I'm sure, I hope someone shows up. We haven't been getting anyone from the state to show up for anything, even though they've been having a huge negative impact on the community. I also am hoping to get an update from the mayor on whether she has reached out to get the DCR commissioner down here for that site visit that we voted on almost three months ago. that Senator Jalen offered to set up, as long as she did it in concert with the mayor, and we've got no update on that either. But that could be another avenue to try to get them to do something better here. It's bad.
[Zac Bears]: I also have a form of motion. Thank you, Madam President. I don't have a problem with Councilor Knight's suggestion. Other than that, I do think that the Fellsway situation warrants, you know, we can have a meeting on the litany of problems that we have. And that was the intent of the paper in May was, you know, we've got problems up and down on what Councilor Scarpelli was just saying on every issue. You know, I do think that this sidewalk project does deserve hopefully a little bit more specific and urgent response because it's not done yet. It's happening now, and I'm hoping maybe we could change course on it, but I don't have a problem merging the two and then having a more immediate meeting on this specific project and then a full meeting on the full range of issues that we have with our DCR properties in the city.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. And just to be clear again, my intent with the original paper to do this three by three was exactly the council. I was just saying, which is come down here and we'll talk about everything. Now that the papers are merged, that's fine. I hope we get an update from the administration on if they've reached and reached out to DCR and Senator Jalen's office to schedule that. I think also what we should do in the short term relative to councilor Kirby yellows point is have someone from DCR come to a council meeting to discuss the sidewalks on the Fellsway. That doesn't need to be all the rigmarole and scheduling and planning of getting the DCR commissioner down here and talking about 25 different issues we have with DCR. So if we could maybe get that to happen, you know, I mean, as soon as possible, the summer's kind of difficult, but even if we could get a written update in the next 10 days, you know.
[Zac Bears]: Right. So I don't know, but that would be, now that the papers are merged, if we could get some sort of update from DCR where the clerk's office could send out tomorrow to DCR and to the state delegation a request for an immediate update within 10 days regarding whether or not we can get the sidewalks address the issue and get the concrete sidewalks replaced with concrete, not with asphalt. And then we can go down the road and look at the longer issue we have with DCR properties. I just don't want this Fellsway issue to get dumped in the pile and with 50 other problems that we have, when we still might have a chance to influence that process in some way.
[Zac Bears]: I think the amended motion, it's merged, and now the amended motion would be one, to reach out to the DPW commissioner.
[Zac Bears]: ask for a meeting with delegation on state entities. We're going to ask the DPW Commission to report back to us within 10 days why the DCR is replacing it with asphalt. And then we're also going to ask the administration for the update on paper 22-353.
[Zac Bears]: Right, I don't disagree with any amendments now that the paper's merged. It's mine and Councilor Caraviello's, so I don't know.
[Zac Bears]: I would just like to, response from the DPW commissioner is fine. I'd like to get a response from the DPW commissioner as soon as possible as to any information that the DPW commissioner has regarding the sidewalks on the Fellsway. And then I'd also like to say once we get that response that the DPW commissioner with the support of the council contact DCR and the state delegation to encourage them to, um, replace the concrete sidewalks on the Fellsway and Fellsway West with concrete sidewalks and not asphalt sidewalks, because I feel like what we're just going to get back from the DPW commissioner is he's going to come back and say, DCR said this is their policy, and then we're going to be in September, the project's going to be done, and we're not going to have at least asked them and said that we would prefer the sidewalks. So yeah, I mean, I'm happy to motion to approve the merged papers as amended to say, the meeting with the state delegation and have the clerk reback.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, I think I don't want to deliver it. I mean, I think it's just getting everything in order.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, Yeah, I would like to ask the DPW commissioner for response as soon as possible as to why the DCR, you know, to Councilor Caraviello's initial motion will explain why concrete sidewalks on the fellows way were torn up and replaced with asphalt and then send a communication, ask the DPW commissioner to send a communication to DCR and the state delegation saying that it's the preference of the city and the city council that the concrete sidewalks be replaced with equivalent concrete sidewalks. That's all I'm trying to do.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Press release came out a couple weeks ago that the city is going to start crack sealing some roads. My understanding is that's a standard maintenance practice that we probably should have always been doing. Probably shouldn't be press release worthy that we're doing it now. So I'd like to know is to whether we had been doing any cracks ceiling before the current project. And the reason I asked that is that I was looking over the paper management plan that came out last year. And as far as I can tell, or the plan says that if the city does not increase its investment in road maintenance from $1 million per year to about $9.5 million per year, that the backlog of maintenance is going to grow drastically over the next five fiscal years. It was at $48 million in fiscal year 21. If we continue on the same path of investing $1 million per year in road maintenance, which is essentially our Chapter 90 allocation from the state, then that backlog will balloon to 120 million just for the roads. That's not even including sidewalks. That's just the roads by fiscal year 2026. We just passed the fiscal year 2023 budget. We're going into the fiscal year 2024. And I just think it once again indicates the massive, not only that we are facing a massive, a significant structural budget deficit in the short term on operating costs, but we have essentially a massive budget needs deficit in the long term, where if we don't multiply our investment in roads by 10 times, then we're going to see our backlog triple in just five years. So basically what these folks who are experts in pavement said is you need to have 10 times as much money spent on road maintenance as you have now if you actually want to make a dent in your road maintenance backlog. When anyone looks at their roads and sidewalks and says, why are they in such horrible shape? It's basically because the city is spending one tenth of what it needs to be spending to address the problem. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Liza. Thank you to the whole Tenants Association you know, I'm sorry that we're at this point. And I can say that I'm not living it. I can only imagine how it feels and how it's felt for months. And I know how people were feeling right when it happened and they jumped ship just to have something. Cause that's, that's really how it feels. It's like you're suddenly you're maybe in a lifeboat for 30 or 60 days and you have to find another boat to get out. That's not going to sink. So you can keep going to work and have a roof over your head. and have some sense of stability in your life. That's the cost. At the forefront, we can talk about the city and the property taxes and an override. The forefront of the cost of living issue in this community, the forefront of displacement, And the people who are really getting hit the hardest when we talk about cost of living are renters who are living in buildings that are being treated purely as speculative investments by big developers, large companies, wealthy people. The only thing they care about is they bought this thing, it's an investment, it's got to make money, end of story. The rest of the equation doesn't matter to them. I want to take what you said about qui bono and take it to a paradigm that I try to use and that I learned a long time ago is incredibly useful when you're talking about the intersection of political decisions and economics. It's not just who benefits. It's who pays, who benefits, and who decides. In this situation, The only person that's benefiting is this property owner who's making a massive gain on a speculative investment in a housing market that doesn't care about people. Who's paying? We're paying, the city of Medford's paying. We're paying, and I don't mean just the city itself, the city and its residents, that's who's paying. These people are paying in anxiety, displacement, lack of stability, loss of community, exclusion. We're paying as a city because we are no longer able to house people who wanna live here in a stable and affordable way that we've been able to do it a long time, for a long time. And the only people, you know, this is the really twisted part, and we can slow down the decision and try to make an impact here and there, but who decides? The person who's making the benefit is the only person who's deciding. They're deciding to get rid of people for their own benefit and dump the costs onto their tenants, their residents, and onto us as a city. That's a fundamentally unfair system. And it's a fundamentally unfair thing for this community to have to face and for its residents to deal with. Now, I think this speaks to why it's so important. that this local council does the advocacy that we've been doing to our state delegation around the needed changes in state law to give communities like Medford tools to change the playbook and balance the equation so that it's not one party completely benefiting, you know, one other party completely paying the costs and no one being able to adjust that equation. So I think, again, There's things that we can try to do at the local level. I think we should try to do them, have the conversations, move it along, paying a few bucks more so that we can have actually the level of staff support that we need to help people who are in housing crisis would be a start. To have people who can support people through housing stability. We have neighboring communities that have dozens of people where if you're a resident who's facing this problem, you can go to your city and someone will help you with your case. They will help you through the process. We have someone you can call who can kind of direct you somewhere else, but it's not the same level of support. So when we're talking about helping the people most in need, the people most facing inequity, the people who are having the cost of living fight, that's the hardest in the community, they need support from their city government. They need resources in their city government actually devoted to this problem. We need to provide those. They need a change in state law to balance the equation so that people are put first and that our communities are put first and not just the needs of whoever decides to buy whatever building whatever day to make however much money they want to make. you know, we can keep going on and say, you know, I guess it's just about money. That's what land and buildings and housing is all about. It's just about who can make the most money. And the more that we do that, the more that you're gonna be in the situation where people can't live here, where the kids of people who grew up here can't live here, where people, you know, you don't have the diversity, racial, economic, social diversity that makes a community great. All of the problems that we're talking about As a community, this issue of housing is at the core of it. And I know that I as one Councilor will continue to push as hard as I can for the city to invest more resources in this crisis, for the city council and hopefully the city administration to advocate for the long overdue legal changes that we need at the state level to give us more tools, and hopefully throw out that old playbook and get a new one. because the old playbook's not working for anybody except for the speculators who are making millions and millions and millions of dollars off of people's housing, from people's homes. Now, I just said some nice things. We'll see where it goes, but that's how I feel about it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Paper 22-453, offered by President Morell, Vice President Bears, and Councilor Collins. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the Public Health and Community Safety Subcommittee meet to consider potential ordinances, policies, and regulations to strengthen the protection of reproductive rights for Medford residents and for people seeking medical care in Medford. President Morell.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. On the motion of President Morell to send this resolution to the Public Health and Community Safety Subcommittee, seconded by Councilor Collins as amended by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, you may call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, five in the affirmative, none in the negative, two absent. The motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I sent an email to the City Administration about this. 10, 9, 10 months ago, kind of hit a dead end at the time. We've since cycled through to a new fire chief. And I have sent a request but I'm awaiting a response and I would just, essentially what this is about is East Albion Street crosses Medford and Somerville. Currently it's completely blocked off. So no pedestrian access, no bike access. There are some park facilities at Medford, some park facilities in Somerville right next door that would make sense to connect and provide added benefits to residents of both communities. And I would just like to ask my fellow Councilors to ask the city administration for an update on whether that barrier is city controlled, private controlled, controlled by the city of Somerville, and what are ways that we can make improvements there to allow for pedestrian and bike access.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Councilor Senk, for co-sponsoring with me. I think as folks know, last year, the U.S. Congress and the President signed, passed and the President signed a bipartisan infrastructure law allocating hundreds of billions of dollars for infrastructure. to states and municipalities. I'm interested both in generally what of those funds the city has applied for or is looking to access and also specifically to grant programs, Safe Streets for All, which would allow us to create a Vision Zero action plan. Vision Zero means that we would have zero fatalities on our streets. This is personally important to me as someone who has lost someone close to me in a traffic collision. And also the reconnecting communities pilot that's a program it's in a pilot this year and I think they're looking to expand it to a full program and future fiscal years, which is all about the impact of the construction of highways and those divided communities, as we know, Medford. lost entire neighborhoods when they built a highway right through the middle of the city. And also we have the overpass on Route 16 as well, which takes up a surprising amount of space if you actually start to look at the square footage of that whole intersection. So I do think it would be great if the city could apply for that program as well to look at if there's ways that the federal government is now willing to fund mitigation and reparative action to the funding that they put into the highway system in the 1950s and 60s that had such negative impacts on communities. So that's the intent of this resolution. And I move to approve and send this to the city administration.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. not to belabor something I'm sure we'll all support and get a request on, but another piece of that reconnecting communities is, you know, mitigation of sound, right? We've been working on sound barriers on the Fountain Street for a long time. Representative Donato has been working on that as long as, as well as many councilors. I think we've all sent resolutions in support of that. There was a report out recently that put us as one of the top communities for lowered health and life expectancy due to the pollutants of highways. I happen to live You know, I look at the highway every day outside of the windows of my house. I happen to live very close to one. And I, you know, hope that the position of our house and whatever else means that we're a little safer than other people, but we have a very high level of health impacts from pollution, from motor traffic as well. So those are just some of the additional things that I think apply on this mitigation. And hopefully we can bring in some federal money to address those impacts. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilor Collins for co sponsoring this with me. I think this was actually even something that I submitted before the latest round of outages that we saw. Obviously, we had some storm induced outages over the past few days. That's something you can't necessarily mitigate for. Although if our utilities were underground, then that wouldn't be a problem that we would have. But you know, National Grid's only making a couple billion in profits off of the people of Massachusetts every year, so they can't be asked to do too much. Essentially, here we have had outages at really unexpected times in South Medford, multiple times impacting residents, obviously, in the many ways that power outages impact them. It's even worse now with remote work, though. You have people at home that can't work for a few hours. So, you know, we've had some up in the heights. We had a pretty long power outage recently, which is longer than I can remember. And then, you know, so I want to know if there's a current issue that's made our grid in worse condition than it's been in the past. Now, whether that's demand or infrastructure, I don't know, but I'd like to have the answer. And then there's this larger question of You know, we had some folks here recently, I think from National Grid, and I asked them, are we planning to bury any of the utilities on, I mean, it may have been Winthrop Street, I can't remember where it was, but, and they basically said no. Now we're about to, we just saw, it hasn't been quite passed yet, but it got through the Senate, right? Massive investment in electric vehicles and electric vehicle charging. We have climate change and the heat waves that we've been going through that are putting much more demand in our electrical grid. And I could go on and on and on and on, Um, but and then you have storm impact, right? Because we have so much above ground utility. So in addition to is there a short term problem in the short term plan? I'd like to know how much of the billions of dollars in profits National Grid is planning to plow back into our infrastructure so it's ready for the additional electric needs that we're gonna have over the next 5-10 years. Thank you, Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. This is truly a question of curiosity. Looks like we have small machines used to pick lines on city-owned fields that I hadn't seen before. And I'm just interested to know what the acquisition process was for those and how long we can expect it to last.
[Zac Bears]: 22-458 offered by Councilor Tseng be it so resolved that the Metro City Council asked the MBTA to reinstate the 325 326 and 710 bus routes, given the planned closure one month closure of the orange line. beginning on August 19th, ensure that there are sufficient shuttle buses for Orange Line communities, especially for the state primary election on September 6th. Be it further resolved that the Medford City Council supports federal officials' calls for the elimination of subway and bus fares while the Orange Line service changes are in place, Be it further resolved that the Medford City Council ask the city administration to inform residents of changes to Orange Line service and of alternatives such as free commuter rail services to zone 1A, 1B and zone 2 stations. And be it further resolved that the city council ask the city administration to work with MBTA and solicit feedback from the community to see how Medford can mitigate increases to traffic. Councilor say.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further comments from members of the Council? I will just say, for one, thank you, Councilor Tseng, for putting this on the agenda. You know, as it seems to be always at the MBTA, there's nice headlines, or maybe not so nice headlines, or the devils of the details. So far, I've seen some communications back and forth with municipalities that are less than encouraging, but I support this resolution. Is there any public participation regarding this or any MBTA issues? Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: So- Thanks, Mary Ann.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you for your efforts as well as to all the people who helped you with the petition. And I know your advocacy has been incredible.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Mr. Navarre. I will just, for folks who may or may not know, we as a city council have requested a lot of communications improvements from the city of Medford on a lot of different issues, specifically around this issue. We passed a resolution regarding making sure that the full amount of information was sent out in reverse 911 calls, especially people who don't have access to computers or may not otherwise be able to access information. We as a city council held our own committee of the whole meeting. We invited the MBTA here. They didn't show up. We still held the meeting and took public comment, took comments from the councillors and submitted those as part of the official public comment record for the MBTA. We requested, I believe, a couple of reverse 911 calls specifically about this issue to pull out prior to the July 31st public comment period. And I'm probably missing two or three other things. Oh, there's Yeah, we did request that if whatever draft is produced after this public comment period that that draft be presented and then another public comment period occur. And then we're also looking at where the city's authority and potentially the city council's authority is as to the creation of new bus stops, and if that possibly is a way that the city could say, we're not going to approve any new bus stops, adjustments to routes without potentially the loss of others. We don't know exactly where that is yet, but that's another tool we're exploring using as a city council. When it comes to communication, all we can do is ask, we can put out our agendas and hold our meetings, which we do, and we can use our personal, you know, candidate means to reach out to people, but we do not control the apparatus of reverse 9-1-1 or the city's communications. Otherwise, as much as we may want to, and as much as we may ask for things to happen, sometimes that's the same as you asking for them to do something in the city administration. So I just wanted to put that out there. Are there any other comments from city councilors, any amendments to the paper? Seeing none, Roberta, you wanna speak? Keep public comment going.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, yeah, and I completely agree that You know, that work should be the responsibility of city government. One of the conversations we've been having tonight is about resources and the city of Cambridge has, you know, a very large budget due to their Kendall Square and commercial development and all of that, very low tax rate for residential and a lot of resources to be able to put into projects like this that the city doesn't have right now, but absolutely should have. Any further comment from the public or members of the council? On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Bears yes 70 affirmative zero the negative motion passes to dash 459 offered by Councilor Tseng it's a result of the metric City Council asked the Board of Health to lay out its approach to addressing the monkey fox public health emergency and any guidelines associated with it, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. The motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Knight, President Morocco.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comment?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Knight, Any further questions? Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. The affirmative, none the negative. Motion passes. 22-460 offered by President Morell. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council meet in committee of the whole to review and suggest updates to the Medford zoning ordinance chapter 94 section 6.2 signs.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Any further comments by fellow councilors? Any comment by members of the public? I see Mr. Pompeo on Zoom. I will unmute you and ask you for your name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Pompeo. Any further comments? On the motion of President Morell, seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Assembly affirmative to the negative motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I will be voting to send this to Committee of the Whole because I always believe that there are improvements that we can make to our city's ordinances and rules to better achieve the goals that we're trying to achieve. I hope that part of the discussion will be getting the facts on the table about exactly what's happening, how many permits that are being requested are going through the Historical Commission, how many are being approved, are being held up, what's the timeline on that? I really think that the place where we can focus some really good work on this is around just making the process better for everyone involved. And I think that there are ways to accelerate some of what's going on now so that people can get the answers that they deserve and need to have, and that we can also balance that with the protection of the city's goals as stated in the ordinance. So I look forward to that discussion.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President. Motion to suspend the rules to take papers for 22-411, 22-431, 22-436, 22-437, 22-441, 22-442, 22-443, and 22-439.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to waive the six day public comment period and approve.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to amend Ward 5, Precincts 1, Precincts 2 to reflect the name of the school.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Sandy, for being here. Just wanted to confirm, so these are the seven days of early voting for the primary election.
[Zac Bears]: 14 days for the general in November, okay. And just in terms of mail ballots, is that starting as well? Is there a deadline for that?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. If I may like to make a short presentation detailing the proposal in front of this body.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you, Madam President. As was just read, was the language as required by Chapter 59, Section 21C, Subsection G of Massachusetts General Laws pertains to property tax levy referendum vote. This presentation is regarding the specific proposal before us, which is to request that the mayor submit to the Secretary of the Commonwealth a ballot question asking the voters to make the decision of whether or not the city should be allowed to assess additional property taxes to fund essential public schools and city services. As we discussed deeply extensively throughout June, and during the fiscal 23 budget process, Medford is not bringing in enough revenue to meet the spending needs for city services, public schools and the maintenance of our buildings and infrastructure. We've talked about this extensively. We have bare bones budgets and low staffing levels for most of our city departments, which means that the city provides fewer services than residents expect and deserve. There's limited funds at our schools for new materials educator and staff contracts and maintenance, and we have a massive infrastructure backlog for our roads and sidewalks totaling $100 million. Many of our city and school buildings and crumbling or at least disrepaired state and limited maintenance funds. Making that long term problem worse since fiscal year 2021 the city budget has had a structural deficit, which means that unreliable one time revenue sources have been used to balance the budget and fiscal 2021 fiscal 2022 and fiscal 2023. This figure has ranged between 6 million and 12 million since fiscal 21, and about $8 million and $12 million over the last two fiscal years. What that means is that the only short-term options available to close the structural deficit as one-time revenue sources dry up are either, one, further budget and service cuts that will deeply hurt and impact our public schools and city departments, or raising revenue through the operating budget through a Proposition 2 1⁄2 override to close the structural deficit. In June, the council made several recommendations to the mayor, including a request that by July 14th, the mayor provide an alternative revenue plan that avoids further budget and service cuts in future fiscal years. The mayor's response to those recommendations in late June did not provide a detailed plan and suggested that fiscal 24 city budget may have even more service cuts than the budget that we just discussed. This is a chart of what that looks like. On the left, you see fiscal year 20, which was the last year that the city did not have a structural deficit. In fiscal year 21, we used almost $6 million in free cash to balance the budget. In fiscal year 2022, we used over 12 million in ARPA revenue replacement funds to balance the budget. The initial proposal for the fiscal 23 budget would have looked somewhere around $11.25 million in one time revenue to balance the budget that ended up coming down to about $7.8 million in one time revenues, once the final fiscal 23 budget was approved. So there's again a significant structural deficit now baked into the city budget. where we are relying on one-time revenue funds that may not be there in the future to provide the essential public school and city services that residents want. This is the process that has come up so far. As I mentioned before, at our June 14th and June 21st meetings, the council requested that the mayor provide an alternative plan to end the structural deficit and avoid cuts. We asked that to come to us by July 14th of this year. We received a response in June that did not have a detailed plan. And then today we received a press release from the mayor suggesting a $3 million override referendum that came out around 1.30 today. The steps that would go before us on this, if we were to go on this timeline, again, this is the timeline where an override would be earliest on the ballot. and would coincide with the current election cycle, would be the council voting at the meeting tonight, pending mayoral approval to place a referendum on the November 2022 ballot. According to state law, the mayor would then have to send the referendum to the secretary of state by August 2nd, the first Wednesday in August, to then place an override referendum on the ballot. And then on November 8th of 2022, Medford voters would cast ballots to determine the outcome of the referendum. The this proposed referendum the text is here it's already been read once asked that question is formed here on the right, along with a yes or no option as proposed it would end the structural deficit facing the Medford city budget for fiscal year 24 and future fiscal years. It would provide needed resources for students and educators in our public schools. It would increase support for the Department of Public Works for staff and materials needed for road and sidewalk repairs, provide funding for the Medford Public Library, and would provide some flexible funding to address urgent issues and key priorities as needed. In addition to these items, in the long term, it would give the city breathing room to make long overdue investments in our city services as other revenues recover from the drop-offs that were caused by the pandemic. The cost impacts of this referendum as proposed for Medford residents are as follows. First, if a majority were to vote yes in November if this were to be on the ballot, the property tax levy would increase by $12 million. This is commonly referred to as a prop two and a half override. The annual cost for the average single family home, which was valued at $654,400, would be 549.70 per year. So it would cost 550 per year for the average single family property. That's $46 a month or $1.50 per day. The way this would work is it would change the tax rate and then apply to each property based on assessed value. The Massachusetts Department of Revenue provides a tool to calculate impact on taxpayers. If this were to appear on the ballot and yes vote were to happen, it would only allow an increase over 2.5% for one year fiscal year 2024, all future years would be limited to the same two and a half increase that the city has been limited to since 1980. The city can also implement exemptions to help residents most affected. I believe in August, we have on our agenda to be discussing the residential and owner occupied exemption, as well as potentially I have an item on the agenda tonight, we're increasing the eligibility and exemption amount for the over 65 senior exemption. Absolutely. And again, if you want to actually look at the calculator from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, you can go to this link, bit.ly slash DLS tax calc, and you can plug in any amount you want and see what that impact would be on the average resident. This is actually that exact calculation pulled out today, maybe a little hard to see, but I will be posting these slides after the meeting online. Again, for the average single family property, value at $650,000, it would be a $550 per year increase. So thank you for allowing me to make that presentation. I'd just like to follow up with a couple of comments. This is a proposal specifically to address the existing structural deficit within the city budget and avoid further cuts in fiscal year 2024 and beyond. It does not address our capital needs backlog, like a new fire headquarters, Medford High School, or the $100 million road and sidewalk deferred maintenance amount. This proposed amount and timeline is because it would fully eliminate the structural deficit in one fiscal year, provide certainty and stability for our city's financial future, and do so within an already scheduled election. Now, this is just me personally. It is my personal firm belief that we have to act now, and that we need to trust the voters to make this decision to end the structural deficit and stop future cuts to our budget. However, regardless of what happens tonight, or between now and August 2, the August 2 deadline to move forward on this timeline, I remain fully open to suggested changes by my council colleagues, collaborative engagement with the mayor's office, which appeared to begin today, and I would support any process needed to move forward, whether it's the one that I've outlined tonight, or a different process that we work towards collaboratively. At the end of the day, the budget is in the situation that it's in, we have a structural deficit, and we know from the month of discussion around the fiscal 23 budget that our public schools and our city departments can't afford any more cuts, there's nothing left to cut in the city. And if we don't find revenue to address the structural deficit, we're going to be in a very difficult position in fiscal year 24, and years beyond that. I'd like to conclude my comments by thanking my fellow Councilors for allowing me to make this presentation, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say about this issue. Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you to my fellow colleagues for their comments. This isn't the administration I wanna be managing this money. This is the situation I want us to be in. We've been asking whether it's, what are we at two and a half years now, we've been asking for certain financial reporting and information, seven months we've been asking for it under this council. I can't even begin to think the number of hours we spent in June, going through the budget and saying, what the heck is going on, and us having to do the deep research with our packet of, you know, sheets of paper where we didn't know what's happening. I don't disagree with that at all. As you said, there isn't anyone here tonight from the administration. We asked unanimously a month ago, you know this, we can say it's coming up now and I understand this specific proposals coming up now. But we asked, we asked over a month ago, after months and months and years and years of requests for a fiscal plan and a revenue plan, and how are we moving forward and how are we going to fund the city for something, you know, and we got an answer. Five hours before the meeting that was maybe we could do something like this and you know we're just starting to think about it today. So you're right. Where's the leadership. At this point, I understand the concerns that you have, but we all know that there's not eight to $12 million in the city budget that we can go find that doesn't mean firing people. who work for this city. It's just not there. We could find a few hundred thousand, maybe we're lucky, we find a couple million, but if we hit the wall in fiscal 24, and we can't address the structural deficit, and we're talking four, eight, 12 million in a structural deficit where we don't have the revenue to come in, it means people are getting laid off, that the city's providing even less than it already is providing, and things are getting worse. The people who are hurt the most when government isn't there are the people who need government the most. So I understand that the higher costs on taxpayers is gonna have different impacts on everyone who pays. We're all individual people, we all have our own stories, we all have our own experiences. And I don't wanna mitigate that. But the act of government that we do is balancing. You can't name a single business in the world where when their costs go up 9% in a year, they can only raise their price 2.5%. It doesn't exist. There's, there's no business in the world where you would have to cut, you know, I mean, essentially that's what we're saying. If we're, if we're going to go into this situation without additional revenue, and I understand all of the reasons my fellow Councilors have put out reticence with this administration and how they'll manage it and all of that. But if we run into that wall in 11 months, which the mayor basically said to us in her budget letter, we're gonna run into that wall, because the offer money is going away and we don't have the one time revenue, we have a structural deficit, and we're going to be responsible and lean. Whose jobs are we going to be responsible and lean with? I don't I don't want to fire people we already know the city can't do what it needs to do so so you know I understand that we need more leadership. I completely agree that we should have a proactive revenue plan for this city. At this point it's falling on us. We don't have a staff we don't have an assessor we don't have a finance department we're just a city council the city of Medford. Somebody needs to step up. Now, I understand the reticence, I completely understand it. I wish we weren't at this moment asking this mayor to manage this money. I agree with that. But we are where we are. And as I said in fiscal 21 and fiscal 23 and I'm now looks like I'm gonna have to say in fiscal 24, I'm not gonna vote for a budget where there's less teachers. I'm not going to vote for a budget where there's less public safety. I'm not going to vote for a budget where there's less public works. I'm not going to vote for a budget where we defer the maintenance on our roads and sidewalks and buildings even more. It's unsustainable. It's completely unsustainable. So, that's why I think we need action now. I hear that there are hundreds of people who are concerned. that we wish we had a better process that we had more time to discuss it. We've been asking for that. I don't disagree with anyone that we've been asking for that we haven't gotten it. And now we're getting pushed to the wall. So, that's the reason this is this is this, I put this before you with Councilor Collins tonight is because our backs against the wall. And I don't want it to be next June where we're finding out, oh, my God, we don't have this money. We're gonna have to cut this at the last minute. There's another 10 jobs gone. There's another bunch of vacancies gone. There's another bunch of pink slips at the school. We're sitting here till 2am having a negotiation that we should have had over the months and months before that. I don't want to be there again. If we get there again, I'm gonna feel confident that I put something on the table to try to avoid it. If it doesn't pass this council, it doesn't pass this council. If the mayor doesn't put it on the ballot, the mayor doesn't put it on the ballot. If the voters vote it down, the voters vote it down. I just want to advance some solution to this problem, because it's not coming from the executive leadership right now. It's just not. I mean, we put it out there a month ago. Send us something, please. A plan that's not this. Anything that's not this. That was the resolution. Nothing. And then what do we get today? We get this but smaller. So there is no plan that's not this. Again, I respect all of you deeply. We've done a lot of good work. We're gonna come to consensus. I wanna try to move through a process where we have the least harmful impacts that we possibly can. And we do our best to keep the city functioning and avoid laying people off and firing people. I think this is an approach to get there. I'm open to alternatives or amendments or different approaches to get there. And I'll leave it at that. I just, I know it feels, like a short timeline. I know it feels like we need more here. And maybe we can come back. Maybe there's a special election. Maybe there's something else, right? I don't know. I'm not, I'm not trying to put this in a box. I'm just saying there's an election in November. This is how we address this problem with the election in November. And I think it's something we need to seriously consider. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: We passed a resolution to that effect in June, and You know, I've been saying we need one in the two years we served on the council. So I agree with you that that that's a question that we need to answer.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to put it out there. I understand that in nominal terms that that's true. If you adjust for inflation, two and a half percent per year has been below the rate of inflation. So in real terms, the city's actually spending about the same or less than it was spending in 1980 in inflation adjusted dollars. That's what I meant by that statement.
[Zac Bears]: It should stay on, just don't touch it.
[Zac Bears]: and stop wasting taxpayers' money. Just a point of information on that. That actually wasn't taxpayer money. That was the Eversource project. And this council was having resolutions and meetings asking specifically for what you were asking for around that. We don't control the DPW. All we can do is try to hold them accountable, which this council and these councillors did with multiple resolutions and meetings. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to revert to the regular order of business.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to revert to the regular order of business.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to revert to the regular order of business.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to revert to the regular order of business.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to join the two papers and move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Green was a centenarian, longtime resident, World War II veteran, author, and most importantly, a member of the Grace Church community, at least most importantly to all the residents who reached out to me in sadness at his passing. I know it's now a late hour. There may have been some residents on earlier who had hoped to speak to this, but whereas it was, on the June 28th agenda, and now it's on this agenda, I would ask that we move to approve and send a note of condolence, perhaps to the Grace Church community. And I know Councilor Caraviello had placed this on the agenda as well, so I will defer to him.
[Zac Bears]: Could it be a motion to join and approve?
[Zac Bears]: So that's 416, 421, 4, anything that says 4. That's it, 4. Yeah, it's 413, 416 and 421.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. But that's great. We have a letter here from our Energy and Environment Committee which noted it's static images to change every eight seconds designed to be viewed by pedestrians, not visible from windows of private residences and not on public ways. So that all seems to check out. My only question is just you mentioned on the PSAs, putting city PSAs up. Are you in communication with the mayor's office about that already?
[Zac Bears]: Great, fantastic.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I would second Councilor Scarpellilli's motion to approve and just say, not a condition or amendment or anything, just encourage that to happen as quickly as possible so that once the stations are up, we can work with you on getting public information out there.
[Zac Bears]: Just noting it, it looks like it's right across from the two front doors to the stop and shop, so that's where the- It's the race sidewalk. It's the race sidewalk, the fire lane, and then it's where the two things come up, so there's not a crosswalk. I'm a witness guy. I don't know. It's a crossing area. I'm just like, they're like educated Metro voters at this point. Maybe we should let them out of here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. when still here. Madam President, I would like to amend the paper to strike out the last paragraph as it's, this was submitted in June, so that's why that last paragraph was there. So amended to strike the last paragraph and then a motion to refer to the August committee of the whole meeting with the assessor.
[Zac Bears]: Dangerous, putting me up here. 22-418 offered by councillor saying be it so resolved that the Bedford City Council asked relevant state agencies to fix the broken signage and remove signage debris in Wellington Circle. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion on the motion? On the, on the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve seconded by Councilor Scarpelli Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, for the affirmative, none of the negative motion passes. 22-419 offered by Councilor Tseng. Being so resolved that the Medford City Council asked the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority to remove debris from the Wellington Station grounds. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the motion of Councilor Tseng, as amended by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, five in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. 22-420 offered by Councilor Tseng. Be it resolved that the city administration inform local restaurants and food trucks about the Massachusetts SNAP restaurant meals program and encourage them to apply to this program. This program allows older adults, homeless individuals, and people with disabilities to buy food at authorized restaurants and food trucks using their SNAP EBT card. Restaurants and food trucks can apply to the pilot program through August 31st, 2022. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Motion passes 22-438 offered by Councilor Collins. Be it so resolved that the Medford City Council requests an update from the Department of Public Works on the measure standards or contracts in place for cleaning and waste pickup in the public area along the river between the Craddock Bridge and the pedestrian bridge. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. On the motion of Councilor Collins seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60% of the negative motion passes 22-440 offered by Councilor Collins be resolved at the Medford City Council expressed support for House Bill H 4795 and act to expand access to high quality affordable early education and care which would Support investments in childcare and early education, increase affordability and availability for families and support wage raises for early educators and childcare providers. Be it further resolved that the city clerk forward a copy of this resolution to the Bedford Legislative Delegation, as well as chairs and vice-chairs of the House Ways and Means Committee by Gewitz and Ferranti. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by? Second. Councilor, President Morell. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Private affirmative, one of the negative, one absent. The motion passes. Nothing further on the agenda but we do have public participation we do have someone in line. So, I will recognize you Mr. Cassidy name and address for the record please.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Castagnetti, if I may, just given the lateness of the hour, Two things, one that we passed the first comprehensive zoning recodification of the city and nearly as long as 60 years. This, this past March, and we are looking at hopefully a plan development district will come into maybe domestic app or maybe we'll look at it in our second round of zoning the funding that we secured. to finally execute that. And I would be remiss if I didn't also say, if we're gonna bring up Austria, that Vienna, Austria, many people are housed in social housing, it's incredibly high quality public housing, and the Socialist Party has not lost an election in 100 years.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti.
[Zac Bears]: I gotta go. Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. Seeing no other hands for public participation. Is there a motion on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to adjourn, President Morell, seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I understand the end of your transfer process pretty well at this point, but I have one question. How did we end up overspending by almost $200,000 in the law department?
[Zac Bears]: Would anyone else from the administration have a potential answer as to what those were for and who they were paid to?
[Zac Bears]: I mean, I just don't know what- We do have a limit of five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We have a participant- Five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You have five minutes, Steve.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Wow. That was information I didn't have until right now. Obviously, gonna read these documents when I have a chance and look into it more. My only question again, so if 137,000 of this is a single settlement and 55,000 is apparently something we've already approved but have to approve again, how much of that money would be going to KP Law is my only question.
[Zac Bears]: Could you just, yeah, that's fine. Could you just explain why that's the mechanics of it for me?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And my only other question is, has any additional funding, ARPA funding or other federal funding been used to pay KP law?
[Zac Bears]: So this money is gonna go back into ARPA?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Yeah, I mean, thank you for answering the questions. I have serious concerns about this. I guess, what happens if we were to not approve this or are we, you know, Just kidding, we have a motion to sever out a specific item in these end of year transfers.
[Zac Bears]: Has the $55,000 already been expended effectively?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I would make a motion, one, that we get a listing of any settlements made over $2,500 after July 1, 2021, and have that provided to us since we didn't know about this settlement, and it appears there may be other settlements that haven't come to the council. And then I would motion to cut the end of year transfer between the fire department and the law department by $55,000, and then approve the end of year transfers.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, the first one for the request for the information, the second one to cut 55,000 and then approve the... Still have a few councilors that wanna speak, do I have a second for those motions?
[Zac Bears]: I'm happy to accept that amendment.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I mean, if we're gonna use a corporation analogy, I can't think of any $200 million corporation where the board, the legislature would just say, the chief executive officer could do whatever they want. We don't need to know what's going on. I just don't think that would happen. I would just ask that we, unless there's additional comment, that we vote on these motions. And I again, happily accept Councilor Scarpelli's amendment to go back all the way to January 1, 2020 regarding settlements over $2,500.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Motion approved.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Madam Chair is undebatable.
[Zac Bears]: I withdraw my motion. Mr. Dickinson, we received a, I've withdrawn the motion to table, but we received a message requesting an amendment to 750,000. We can't do that because it's been submitted as a money paper at 500,000, we can't amend it. So if we approve 500,000. Yeah, we'll vote for 500. I just want to understand how that affects the plans, considering that the number was changed after the agenda deadline.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Bears to approve the original amendment.
[Zac Bears]: Whereas this is a standard process that we do every year, I'd move to approve.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Motion to rejoin and approve.
[Zac Bears]: I'll wait until after the public participation.
[Zac Bears]: The mechanic, the person fixing the cars is in the DPW budget. Correct.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I don't want to belabor this because I think these are all relatively reasonable requests. I think what frustrates me here is that the original budget proposal before June 2nd was planning to use free cash for all the other needs in this community. And now we don't have that money here now to go to our schools and our library and all the other city departments that have been cut. So, I'm not against this. I'd like to call the question on it. I think we've belabored it quite a bit. But my question is just why don't we have a free cash request here to restore the funding that's been cut since June 2nd? So again, I call the question to rejoin these, approve and move on.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, and additionally for context here. If you've been following the saga of the last month. This is the money where we thought we had 8 million Then we only had 4 million, then we had 7.2 million. So this is that money. Now, initially in the proposed budget, and I have it right here, the plan was to spend something like 205 million on the whole city budget. Then when we found out that the ARPA was not gonna be eight, but 4 million, we had to cut to about 201 million. And then, thanks to the fine work of our finance department, digging out from the hole that we were in, in terms of knowing where everything was, we ended up back at 7.292, almost 7.3 million, which is almost the 8 million that we were originally planning to use. But none of that, you know, now basically the plan is, well, we cut it already, so now we don't have to do free cash anymore, so we'll stick with the 201. So of course, I'm going to approve this because we need it and it's covering our structural deficit. But at the end of the day, that's about as short as I can summarize what's happened over the past month around this money. So, as I said on the free cash appropriation I do wish that there was additional papers before us tonight. to try to bring us back up closer to that 205 million to try to bring us back up the 2.8 million that got came out of the school budget over the last month, the 1.7 million that came out of our city departments, maybe even a moving that a little bit around as we know for certain priorities, but this is what we have. I'm certainly not going to vote against this, because I would just, you know, this is the federal government covering our structural deficit for now. We might not have it next year to cover the deficit. We certainly won't have it in two years, cause the money has to be spent in by December of 2024. So we're lucky we have this. We're lucky that the federal government passed this, but it's not a long-term answer. It's not even a short-term answer. It may not even be an answer next year. So when it comes down to it, we need to find another source of revenue other than this ARPA money to address our structural deficit. And we don't have that many options to raise that kind of money.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Sorry, if I just may, I just want to say before we continue here, that according to state law and the conversations with the Division of Local Services, our vote here tonight will have no impact on the ability of the Medford Public Schools to hire or rehire anybody. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: If we could just get through this paper and get to the budget, then we can talk about all the budget related issues. It's just that this is not about the ARPA revenue replacement.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Madam Mayor for your presentation. It's good to see you.
[Zac Bears]: The first thing I just want to say is, you know, certainly I was one to vote for an increase in the CFO salary, but I will say, we've been waiting six months for legal opinion to go to third reading on that. So that's been the holdup. And you know, the minute we get that, I'm sure that we've moved forward with it. We sent several resolutions, this council unanimously sent several resolutions to you. last last week, I think, Thursday.
[Zac Bears]: And you sent us a response today. And it largely reflects what you just said to the public.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. You know, but on the question of, you know, essentially level funding this year, in many cases level funding, potentially next year in many cases because we don't have another way to replace the structural deficit that's currently being filled by ARPA funds. Are we potentially going to get a more detailed response by July 14 about how we're going to fill that gap where you know We wouldn't hear that, you know, we've heard an overwhelming cry that we need this money for the next two years to avoid further cuts and that many, many, many voters are ready to have the choice before them to fill that in through a prop two and a half override. Are we gonna have any sort of more detailed response by July 14th so that this council can feel comfortable not going down that road?
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I just asked because. You know, at least the top sheet that we got just after June 2 we were looking more like a $205 million total budget at least the original requested maybe it was requested. and we're down to 201 proposed, right?
[Zac Bears]: And so, you know, all those needs that we have that the department said, the school sent, you know, that was totally 205. That would have been like $12 million structural deficit this year. Instead, we're going with this 201 million, which is like a $7.3 million structural deficit this year. So the structural deficit is somewhere between 7.3 million and 12 million. I guess my question is just, you know, are we going to be able to make that up in fiscal 24 and fiscal 25 without asking the taxpayers to do more?
[Zac Bears]: I mean I like the idea, but I don't like the word hopefully. And, and I guess just my fundamental question is so so basically next year, the ARPA is going to go down we're hoping that revenue goes up, that will allow us to level fund at 201 million.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, I understand that but something I want to spend more than what we have it's that your departments have said we need to spend more than what we have to fully fund the city services so I'm not going to belabor this point any further I'm going to leave my further comments to after we hear from the public and after I hear from my fellow Councilors. But, you know, at the end of the day, what I'm hearing is that. You know, this year we couldn't do as much as we needed to do. Next year, we're not going to be able to do as much as we need to do. Maybe the year after we'll be able to do as much as we need to do if what we hope pans out. And I don't think that we can afford that, quite frankly. I don't think that the citizens of Medford can afford another year of level funded budgets, which mean effective service cuts, which means we're having people constantly going around and saying, why can't we do this? Why can't we do that? Why do we have to keep doing more with less? So I wish that we were having this conversation four months ago. We are where we are now. The timeline is what the timeline is. That doesn't change the circumstances that we face. And if next year we're looking at the same budget this year with another year 8% inflation, that means the budget's going down 8%. You know, that's what inflation means. You know, our real money goes down every year that costs go up and we don't raise the budget. You know, the price of government is the same as the price of anything else. It goes up. And we have a restriction that no company in this country has, which is 2.5% a year. And at a certain point, we're 40 years in now to 2.5% per year. And we're to do 40 years into a two and a half year percent per year artificial constraint. That means that we have less now than we did in 1983 for our DPW for our fire you know I mean, when I hear Larry tell me how many people used to work at the DPW are fixing the streets of the city and how many people we have now. you know, I wasn't there, but I'd like to start moving back in that direction. I understand it's a difficult decision. I understand there'll be difficult impacts. I know that there's ways that we can mitigate those impacts. You know, our senior exemption that we have right now is not maximized. I have a proposal later on the agenda that if we go this direction, we could maximize the senior exemption and help all of our seniors in this community. But at the end of the day, The decision that's being put before us is basically another year of the same things that have been happening for the last 30 years, where everybody in the city is basically being asked to do more, more with less, unless they can apply for a grant or find some state funding, or go outside of the city. And I think that, you know, at least the residents who talked to me and it's more than a handful are sick and tired of it. That's just my position on this. My only other question is, you mentioned 60,000 for the library and 40,000 for, sorry, 40,000 for what?
[Zac Bears]: Madam President. But just quite frankly, I don't think at least my sticking point has anything to do with Labor Council. We came to you, President Morell and I six months ago and we said, We'd like to have a both end approach. We understood the argument that there's a need for outside counsel with specific needs, but the city also functioned with an assistant city solicitor for as long as I can remember, to allow that office to function correctly we said, put them both in the budget, I'm all in. So I labor council and people accountable. That's your job. I want you to do your job. but we also need to be able to do our job. And that means that the law department has the capacity that it needs. And that quite frankly, we're hearing it needs from the person who runs the law department. So, you know, I just wanted to clarify my question was, it was the 60,000 that we go to the library and then the 40,000 that would come to us, we would call it the zoning phase two based on the comprehensive plan so that we can continue the work that we did in phase one to unlock some great opportunities for the city. First comprehensive zoning recodification in 60 years we passed in March. Um, but my question is, where is this 100,000? Is it in the budget proposed before us or is it going to be a supplemental appropriation?
[Zac Bears]: It would be a proposed transfer that we would then approve.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, I mean, that's- Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: I think that was what I saw. Mr. Dickinson also said that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, Mr. Dickinson said that that was also money for potential back pay because some of the contracts are going into previous fiscal years at this point.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, if I could just finish. Thank you for answering the questions. I appreciate it. I'm going to, again, as I said, leave some comments for after we hear from the public on this budget. I know that the public's very involved and engaged on it. And I also believe that this council has some potential alternative places where we may be able to look at transferring money instead of from the, what are we calling it?
[Zac Bears]: Negotiated salaries line. So, you know, maybe there's some alternatives there, but again, I'm gonna finish my question there, hold my additional comments till after questions from my fellow Councilors and public participation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're taking participation from the public. We hope that everyone will stay to hear it. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. I apologize for not saying this before, and I especially apologize for saying it after such a powerful speech. If we could try to keep comments to three minutes just to respect the time, but that was worth every second. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: You have about a minute left.
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Just motion that we move on from public participation and we can take up the additional public participation in the public participation section of the meeting.
[Zac Bears]: No, Madam President, if I may.
[Zac Bears]: So I just wanna now discuss now that we're at action points, specifically what law applies to the city council as pursuant to the budget process. Under our current city charter, We fully adopt Chapter 44, Section 32 of Mass General Laws as pertained to our charter, which specifically says the City Council may by majority vote make appropriations for the purposes recommended and may reduce or reject any amount recommended in the annual budget. It shall not increase any amount in or the total of the annual budget nor add there to any amount for a purpose not included therein except on recommendation of the mayor. It also says that, excuse me one second, if the council fails to take action with respect to any amount recommended in the annual budget either by approving, reducing, or rejecting the same, within 45 days after the receipt of the budget, such amount shall without any action by the city council become a part of the appropriations for the year and be available for the purposes specified. So what that means is that this council can approve the budget, it can reduce specific line items, and if it wanted to, it could go in and reject every single line item, and then there'd be no appropriations. However, if the council does not approve this budget, after 45 days, it automatically goes into effect. Earlier this month, I reached out to the State Division of Local Services Municipal Finance Law Team. The lawyers there said that if the budget were not approved, unless we were to go through every single line item and cut every line item in the budget, which would keep us here until about four in the morning, that would not stop any function of city government. And that mass general law chapter 44, section 32, once again, says that the budget will go into effect 45 days after submission to the council. So at this point, you know, if this council were not to approve the budget tonight, any reduction in service or spending in the new fiscal year would not be because of that. It would be due to the municipal decisions of the chief executive officer of the city of Medford. And I also have several motions regarding both some suggested cuts as well as some recommendations for increases to the fiscal 23 budget. I'm happy to make those recommendations at any time if you so recognize me.
[Zac Bears]: So one of the things we discovered in our budget hearings was that six fire department positions cannot be filled until next May. And that's almost the end of the fiscal year. So taking the, it's not quite a calf, but looking at the base salary, that would allow us to make a cut, not to the positions, not to not have them in the budget next year, Literally the way that the hiring process works, they can't be filled until May. If we were to cut 240,000 from that line, that could free up a significant amount of money to go towards our library, to go towards our law department, to go towards some other expenses. So I would move, and that amount would be $40,000 over six positions. So that's $240,000 total. I would move to reduce the fire salaries permanent FT line item 010-220-5110. That's the specific line item by $240,000. Do I have a second on that motion? Seconded by Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: I think we should, pursuant to section 32, I think we should have, we have to have a vote on each one. So maybe we could just go in sequence and vote on them as they're proposed.
[Zac Bears]: I'm happy to hear from Chief Friedman first, if he disagrees with my reading of it.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. I hear that. I have a couple of clarified questions or so I understand it and I'll withdraw it if the answers are what I think they're gonna be. You mentioned in the budget hearing that we currently have, so we're budgeted for 81 firefighters, not including the lieutenants, captains, deputy chiefs. We're currently at 66, if I'm correct. You said that in the budget hearing?
[Zac Bears]: What I'm saying is, at least this was my understanding, and I'm not trying to put you in any sort of gotcha position at all. Just my, here's my thinking on it. And we're budgeted for 81 here. What I heard is that we had 66 currently, eight more in the pipeline, and then six more who you were hoping to bring up to bring us back up to that 81. or sorry, 80, my apologies. And then, but we wouldn't be able to get people into the academies until May on that.
[Zac Bears]: Up until, not even May, even before that, I was thinking more like February.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I was looking for a place in the budget where maybe we were spending, budgeting for more than we were actually going to spend to help us move that, or recommend we move it to somewhere in the budget where the need is greater than what we're going to spend.
[Zac Bears]: So- Just if I may clarify. So what you're saying is, even though the positions may be vacant through most of the fiscal year, that money is going to go to pay overtime for other people to work because those positions are vacant.
[Zac Bears]: I withdraw the motion. And I'm gonna be before the council. I withdraw the motion, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I believe that I as one Councilor would certainly invite a supplemental appropriation that addresses the requests of this council that have not been fulfilled and potentially also balances that with the requests of the administration that have not been fulfilled. And, you know, sadly, this is the point that we've come to. for years that I've been on this council, for six months that I've been in leadership of this council, we've been sitting in, saying what we need, saying these are specific requests of the council. And quite frankly, there were like five pretty small potatoes asks of this council that we had. that are nowhere to be found in this budget. Now we're at the point where the only way we're going to be able to have that conversation and quite literally the only legal power we have over the budget is to make a cut and then sit down and say, what can you provide us in a supplemental appropriation so that we can come to an agreement? I'm sorry that it's gotten to that point, but it is what it is. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: If I may, a supplemental information could be made quickly. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: If I may, we could have every department head come up here and say the same thing you did, Kevin, and we don't disagree with you at all. But the problem is that this budget doesn't address the full scope of legal services for you guys or for us. And we've been saying for six months that this is a key priority of our council, our top priority. not included in the budget. We have one shot at it. We have a single tool in our toolbox. I wish we had a different one, but state law says this is all we can do. So as I said, if the council votes to cut this line item, I hope that very promptly we will see a supplemental appropriation from the administration to create a legal budget that meets all the needs. I voted for a KP law budget before. I've said that if we can have the staffing we need in house and the outside council we need out of house, I would gladly support that. So, again, we've been very clear for months. We haven't been heard. We're at the last minute, the last day, the last meeting, the last chance. I'm sorry we're here. We didn't put ourselves here. We've been very clear and direct for half a year. So I'm sorry if that's gonna have an impact. I hope it's really short and that's up to the mayor.
[Zac Bears]: No objection.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I sure would. I would move that we hold the Committee of the Whole to discuss revisions to the Historic Commission Ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: That's not true.
[Zac Bears]: More than half of their budget will still be there, so.
[Zac Bears]: Well, as we said, we expect to prompt a supplemental appropriation by this mayor to meet the needs of this community. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: I second the motion to move the question.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I second the motion and move the question.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, I'd like to make a number of recommendations to the mayor for increases to the fiscal 2023 budget. My first motion would be to restore as many of the reductions made to the fiscal 23 budget request after June 2nd, 2022 as possible, as well as to provide additional funding to the Medford Public Schools for educators and staff.
[Zac Bears]: I also have some more specific requests I could make as a package. Request an increase to the law department salaries line item by $85,000. Request an increase to the legislative professional technical services line item by $50,000.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, got it. And last is to request an increase to the elections department of $15,000.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, and I'm just going to add that my intention with these recommendations is once again, with the hope that we will have a negotiation on an amendment or supplemental appropriation to the fiscal 23 budget that allows us to address the priorities and needs of this community, as well as address the impact of cuts made tonight. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: And I think it should be 150 and maybe we can meet in the middle. If you want to reduce the amount, less than $60,000 that she's already committed. Well, it's not committed in any budget before us or any amendment before us. So, you know, my point is that What we heard from the library, the budget hearing is that really what we need is a 150,000.
[Zac Bears]: I would reduce my motion to 90,000 for the library from 150,000, and I would make a further motion to accept the mayor's recommendation to transfer 60,000 from the negotiated salaries line item to the library.
[Zac Bears]: I withdraw my further motion.
[Zac Bears]: This is on the motion as amended to 90,000 for the library.
[Zac Bears]: Correct, I've withdrawn the motion to transfer.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, I guess we'll see what happens. I really wish we weren't in this position.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. This sucks. This really sucks. I have been saying it all night. I wish we weren't in this position. I wish that we had had a budget book early. I wish that the budget had been submitted earlier. I wish that we had known about the ARPA calculation earlier. I wish that we had been part of a collaborative discussion. I wish that the recommendations that we delivered six months ago had been considered properly. you know, wishing, if only wishing made it so. We are where we are now. I've been very clear. I voted against the fiscal 21 budget. Why? It cut teachers. It cut our schools. It wasn't enough for what we needed. I voted yes on the fiscal 22 budget because it did enough and it was enough in a tough time. I've been very clear. I quite frankly think for weeks at this point, There are things that need to be in this budget in order to get my support. They're not in there, so I can't support it. I don't know how much clearer I can get. I wish that we weren't here. I wish that we had had these discussions weeks and months ago, but it's June 28. And once again, whether it's legal counsel's not in the room or we didn't have a finance director or whatever the other reason is, That's where we landed. We've been asking for months to have our priorities considered. We've been asking for months for information. We've been asking for at least weeks for the budget book and getting something early and making it clear that the clock was running out. Time's out. Clock's run out. We are where we are. And it sucks. And I'm sorry that it sucks, but we've done everything we could to avoid it. And at the end of the day, the charter and the budget, it's a function of state law. Mayor's in charge, mayor submits. We can't even really reject the thing. All we can do is say we don't like it, and then 45 days later, it goes no effect anyway, with a few cuts that we made. So that's the power we have, and that's the situation we're in. And that's why I'm not gonna vote for this budget. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: So that if the council takes no action or does not approve the budget that nothing changes on July 1 city continues to function, staff continue to be paid. Expenses continue to be paid. That's what the lawyers who do this every day, the municipal finance law team at the Division of Local Services said to me earlier this month.
[Zac Bears]: It hasn't stayed in practice. I mean, I don't know what answer we're gonna get in the next five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: There are three items that people are still here on, 22-429, the Community Preservation Committee Appropriation, the appointment, and also, which is 430, and also I think Ms. Cuddy's been here around the National Grid Paper 22-409. So maybe we can take one of those and see if we get a different answer in the next 10 minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to table paper 22-408 and take up paper 22-429. Sorry, 409, my apologies.
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by? So moved.
[Zac Bears]: To suspend the remainder of the reading for a summary of the conditions.
[Zac Bears]: Commissioner McGibbon is here as well.
[Zac Bears]: I think we should do it.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: The other motions, or the other items before us, I believe Community Preservation Committee is still here. Is there a motion to take paper 22-429? Motion to take 22-429, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Motion passes. 22-429, June 23rd, 2022. To President Morell, from Mayor Lango-Kun, Dear President Morell, members of the city council, on behalf of the CPC, I respectfully request that your honorable body approve the following recommendation requesting the appropriation of $65,500 from the CPA General Reserve to the Medford Historical Commission for the Thomas Brooks Park Master Plan Implementation Phase 1. Project will be tracked in the General Reserve, a community preservation fund by category General Reserve, and close, please find a copy of the project summary. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor.
[Zac Bears]: Different Brooks. I've just asked Ryan Hayward to unmute if he hasn't fallen asleep at the computer. Here he is. Name and address for the record, please, Ryan. here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Hayward. Questions from the council. Councilor Knight. Move approval. On the motion of Councilor Knight to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Six in the affirmative, one temporarily absent, the motion passes. Thank you. I believe actually the last thing we had on that someone's been waiting here for is Mr. Schrader. Oh, the appointment, the appointment, sorry. My bad, it's late. 22-430, is there a motion to take that off the table? Or to take it as a suspension by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 22-430, June 23rd, 2022. To the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council, City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, re-Community Preservation Committee appointment. Dear President Morell and members of the City Council, I respect the request and recommend that your Honorable body confirm the appointment of Matthew Leming of 12 Willis Avenue to the Community Preservation Committee for a term of three years. A copy of Matthew's resume is attached. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Leming. Questions from the council? Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Morell, President Morell.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions from the council? Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Can we do a voice vote? No, okay. No, no, this is the confirmation to the CPC. Let's just do a roll call.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 70 affirmative, zero the negative motion passes. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. At this point I've been notified that paper 20-400 that was on the table has not been requested to be taken up tonight. That was the coffee cart.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you. I don't think this is when or where we should be doing this, but I'm glad that we're doing it. Just to clarify, basically what you're requesting is that we amend the budget to restore the 202,887 cut. And then for us to accept your amendment to add 85,000 to the law full-time salaries line item, 90,000 to the library, would that be, what would that, so 60,000 to the salaries and 30,000 to the ordinary or?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, 15,000 to elections, and then 50,000 to legislative, professional, technical, and that's a total of 240,000?
[Zac Bears]: You want the 816 as well, okay. Do we think this may qualify for us to put out, I mean, we're scheduled to be here at six o'clock tomorrow, Could we do an emergency meeting or a special meeting tomorrow? We don't think so.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. It's the KP law stuff too, though. I just want us to be clear about that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Again, I hate, I don't want to be doing this in open session. If we were, I even feel, I got no problem with everything here except the KP law piece. And I don't even have a problem with a piece of the KP law piece. I don't know.
[Zac Bears]: What I would ask.
[Zac Bears]: So what we're doing is taking 540,000 from facilities maintenance?
[Zac Bears]: Look, I don't wanna look a gift horse in the mouth here. And I feel like I just don't want to end up back here. I really don't when we're doing the next budget.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. I really cross my fingers here. I'm taking a leap of faith here. I'm willing to do that.
[Zac Bears]: But if I get fried again, you won't. I really hope not. And he's gonna kill me. Yeah, okay, I'll motion. All right, I'll wait for him to finish then I'll motion.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, sorry. I'm sorry to yeah, yeah you. What am I doing? It's too late.
[Zac Bears]: I know. Wow. You're right. And he's right. I just want to be really clear about what this is. And because we're doing it and I'm to be quite honest, I need a little extra time to think this through at this time. So basically the request is we would reconsider the cuts to the executive salaries and KP law. we would motion to accept your amendments to take 240- Recommendations. Recommendations, sorry, to take 240,000, and again, these aren't motions yet, I'm just saying it aloud, to take 240,000 from facilities maintenance and allocate 85,000 to law salaries, 90,000 to the library, 15,000 to elections, and 50,000 to legislative. That's correct. Then we would motion to accept your recommendation to add 300,000 more to the Medford Public Schools from ARPA.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. There's two things I'd like to ask. One, just to clarify, and I know Mr. Murphy came up and quite frankly, it just didn't sit in my head exactly right. What does that 300,000 do in real terms?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Thank you. That makes sense to me. And then the other thing I want to ask- Thank you. Regarding the assistant city solicitor, Would you be willing to put in the job description that up to half of the time or 20 hours a week or however you want to do it would be devoted to working with the council if we needed that time in a given week?
[Zac Bears]: We say up to half the time, up to 20 hours a week if needed. Can we?
[Zac Bears]: So okay, 17 and a half.
[Zac Bears]: Those are could you give us a date certain when the posting will be completed?
[Zac Bears]: The posting or the hiring?
[Zac Bears]: So, I mean, when would it be posted?
[Zac Bears]: September 1 at the latest? I'm just, I want to flush this out.
[Zac Bears]: I'll reserve motions for one more second to see if anyone else has any questions at this point.
[Zac Bears]: You can consult with the council leadership.
[Zac Bears]: I would motion to reconsider, well, the winning side has a motion to reconsider the recommendations first, okay. Oh yeah, can we get a key to these boxes please? I know we asked for it two weeks ago.
[Zac Bears]: That's a good point.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, motion to accept the mayor's recommendation to reallocate 240,000 from facilities maintenance to reallocate it to 85,000 to the law department.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, we should work with the clerk really, I think, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we'll get to it, then we'll reread it, then we'll make corrections if needed. To move, yeah, so 240,000 from facility maintenance ordinary to 85,000 to the law department permanent full-time salaries. And I'll give the clerk some time here. 90,000 to the library.
[Zac Bears]: 90,000 into library salaries. 15,000 into elections, full-time salaries. Is that the easiest place?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Yep. Uh, so which line would that be or just ordinary elections, ordinary 15,000 and then 50,000 to legislative professional and technical services.
[Zac Bears]: just for in ordinary expenses.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And whereas there are people still here, I would like to give people an opportunity to speak to this as it's unexpected.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, there's more than enough money in there to raise his salary.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk, is this current rate 350 a month?
[Zac Bears]: We actually have a hand raised.
[Zac Bears]: That's the next item, we're not there yet. Okay. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: On the request of Councilor Knight, could we have the Chief of Staff commit to that?
[Zac Bears]: What did we go to? Went to four, can we go to five instead? So I mean, if he does eight meetings, right?
[Zac Bears]: The more than four, it's not actually a budget question. The good Lord, I can't believe we're here. Legislative page 80. There's more than enough money to pay that rate to Mr. Colbert within the budget. We budget 9,600. 350, I mean, I just can't do that math in my head at this point. 350 times 12 is 4,200, 500 times 12 would be 6,000. So we'd still be 3,600 short. That doesn't come out of that, that comes out of a different line. So, you know, we have 9,600 budget, 9,600 budgeted, $500 a month would be 6,000.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, are you good with that?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, this meeting alone is worth 350 bucks. To, yeah, to...
[Zac Bears]: On the motion, could you read it back one more time?
[Zac Bears]: your microphone.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to accept the Mayor's recommendation and need Just let me know if I say anything wrong. Madam Chief of Staff, let me know if I say anything wrong. Motion to accept the Mayor's recommendation to allocate $300,000 to the Medford Public Schools. Do we need to, from ARPA, and then Manager Kivey was saying we should probably have a purpose for that. Do you have language for that?
[Zac Bears]: Are we okay with that? Okay, on the motion to, could you read back the motion, Mr. Clerk? Go ahead. What happens if there is no bucket?
[Zac Bears]: Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Could we just, as we did on the previous item, allow for any members of the public who would want to speak?
[Zac Bears]: Sounds right.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to reconsider the vote taken to cut line item 0101515302. That was the cut to the law. professional services of $81,600.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I think we actually would motion to reject. Reject the cut. Yeah. We just reconsidered the motion to reconsider. So that would be a motion to reject. Yeah, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Basically, we're back at the point of the cut. Well, that's not necessarily true. We're basically at the point of where the cut was proposed. So right now, we can be a motion to approve. We all vote no, and it's not approved. There's a motion to reject. We all vote yes, and it's not approved.
[Zac Bears]: I'll second.
[Zac Bears]: Then we'll vote no, and it won't be cut.
[Zac Bears]: No.
[Zac Bears]: motion to reconsider the cut to executive full-time salary line item 0101025110 of $202,887 on the motion of virtues and bears to reconsider the cut to the executive salary seconded by Councilor Tseng I'll give the clerk a moment to wrap a slip
[Zac Bears]: No. Yes, yes, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Let's just be consistent.
[Zac Bears]: No one's having fun.
[Zac Bears]: We still have one more vote after this vote.
[Zac Bears]: No.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I'm going to make a motion, one second. But to the surprising number of people who are still here and the surprising 46 people who are still on Zoom, the next vote is going to be on the budget. I want to be very clear. that what just happened doesn't solve our short-term crisis or challenges, doesn't solve our long-term needs, but it was, I believe, a good faith negotiation between the executive branch and the legislative branch of the city of Medford to make some progress on the fiscal 23 budget. It doesn't change the position that this budget isn't enough. It doesn't change the position that next year's budget from what we've heard isn't enough. And we still have a lot of work to do on those issues. And we will hopefully be doing it over the next few weeks and months to come. I will vote yes on this budget after the enduring or the ordeal we just went through on this negotiation, because I think we won some significant key priorities of this council. But I again, wanna be clear that we're still in a deep hole. We still have a serious structural deficit and we still need to find a way to raise the revenue to address that this year, next year and the year after until the commercial development that's unlocked by the zoning ordinance that we passed can begin to come online. With that, I would motion to approve the mayor's fiscal 23 budget as amended. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: 25th regular meeting of the Medford City Council June 21 2022 is called to order Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Bears present six present one absent, please rise to salute the flag.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I just, before we start, want to inform the public, President Morell and her family have contracted COVID. That's why she's not able to be here tonight. We are sending her our best wishes and hope to have her back with us very soon. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to suspend the rules to take petitions, presentations and similar papers followed by public participation by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. 22-366, City of Medford, notice of a public hearing. Medford City Council hold a public hearing in the Howard F. Alden Chambers at Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford and via Zoom on Tuesday. June 21st, 2022, a link to be posted no later than Friday, June 17th, 2022, on a petition from the Ford on the Meadow. Barry Rafferty, 61 Locust Street, Medford, 02155, for a special permit to amend its hours of operations in accordance with Medford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94, 7.2.1, to operate extended hours of its business at 61 Locust Street, Medford, MA, site being located in a mixed-use zoning district as follows. 11 p.m., extended hours of operation requested, 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. Sundays through Saturdays. Petition and plan may be seen in the office of the City Clerk. Room 103, Medford City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts. Call 781-393-2425 for any aids and accommodations. This is by order of the City Council, Adam Herdeby, City Clerk. Advertise the Medford transcript June 2nd and June 9th. Mr. Efford, if you'd give us a short presentation and then we will open the hearings.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Rafferty. As this is a public hearing, I'm opening the public hearing to people in favor of the petition. Could you give us your name and address? Barry Rafferty, 51 Crocker Road, Medford. Thank you. Anyone else in favor of the petition? Seeing none, this portion of the hearing is closed. Now open to anyone in opposition to the petition. Seeing none, this portion of the hearing is closed. Now open it to members of the council for questions. Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion of Councilor Knight to waive the public comment period and approve, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. I'd like now to go just if we could. Yes, exactly. So I'd like to move to a public participation for folks who were, basically we had to move to our regular meeting on Zoom. So if there's anyone on public participation at this point who'd like to speak to the public schools budget, anyone who'd like to speak in public participation to the school's budget? Any hands online? I have one hand online. Paul Garrity, please give your name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Geraghty. I see Adam with their hand raised. Please give us your full name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Justine. I can personally just from reading the book, I know that there is money budgeted for security. I do also know there was a reluctance around specifics. I don't know if members of our school administration would like to maybe provide any further context to this question. I do think nation was to avoid specifics for very clear reasons point of information.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Maybe Mr. Murphy, as you answer, you can provide some context.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Could you just give your email in case anyone has follow-up questions that may be able to be answered outside of a public session?
[Zac Bears]: Any further public comment regarding the Metro Public Schools budget at this time? Not seeing any. We will, of course, be meeting next week as well, and we invite all public participation at all of our meetings. Yes. Yes, paper 22-388. Yes, of course, paper 22-388 under suspension. Mister to be says managing agent for Simmons properties LLC which owns the property is known as 196 on 200 Boston Avenue, therefore known as the properties Cummings properties LLC requests that the city changes owning district destination for the properties from industrial to office to please advise as to whether you will require any additional action or information from the owner and connection petition. and readily available should questions or other reasons for further discussion arise. Thank you sincerely. Cummings Properties LLC, Derek Russell, Vice President of Operations. And again, this is the 196 and 200 Boston Avenue Properties. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Knight, then Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Yeah, you know, Chapter 48 rules here. So we have to send this to Community Development Board and then they'll take a look at it, and it sounds like they've taken a look at it before, so they may have some positive looks. I do wanna recognize that we do have our Director of Planning, Development and Sustainability, Alicia Hunt, as well as our Economic Development Director, Victor Schrader. I don't know if either of you would like to say anything at this time. Wave at me and I'll unmute you. Seeing none. Oh, okay, we got Alicia, all right. Alicia Hunt, just give us your name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Just to confirm, are you saying that we can't refer this to Community Development Board tonight?
[Zac Bears]: The public hearing is of Community Development Board.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, director. I'm not usually in the hot seat here as I'm the vice president. So I appreciate your direction. Is there a motion to refer to Community Development Board? On the motion of Councilor Collins to refer to the Community Development Board, seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favour? Aye. We need a roll call. All right, roll call. Yes, six in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: All right, on the motion of Councilor Collins to take paper 22400 and 22408. Seconded by, thank you. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 22-400. To the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council, City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, read. Food truck permitting. Dear President Morell and members of the City Council, on behalf of the below entity, I respectfully submit to the City Council following requests for a food truck permit in the city of Medford. In addition to City Council approval, vendors are required to adhere to health department food safety requirements. the well coffee house dates and times every monday thursday and friday 7 a.m to 11 a.m in june and july 21 to 24 calendar days location riverside plaza riverside avenue event pop-up coffee service enclosed please find please find a copy of the current menu by the well coffee house thank you for your kind attention to this matter sincerely brianna local current mayor um i think we would like to hear from the petitioner
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Campbell, we do have Mr. Schrader. I don't know if he's involved with this at all. I don't know, I think if you could speak to this or not, but you are the economic development director, so.
[Zac Bears]: And yeah, I think also the point was also that we should look comprehensively at the, at all of these or at the food truck.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. And I just want to say, as you can tell by the terminology we're using, some of our ordinances are a little old. And I think the intent of this council certainly, or at least myself as a councilor, it sounds like the intent of the council is that we'd like to, in the long run, modernize our ordinances because we want to create on-ramps for businesses like yours to test it out. I mean, I think it'd be, Wouldn't it be great to have another coffee house instead of another bank and another insurance company? No offense to our wonderful banks and insurance companies, but we have quite a few of them in Bedford Square. And it's not a lot of. not a lot of foot traffic. So, you know, I just, I just want to make that point, you know, we're doing a little bit of a procedural thing. It sounded like there was a motion to table this maybe for one week and ask Victor Schrader to review, to make sure that this is allowed under the push carts, as well as to reach out to the neighboring businesses that may be affected.
[Zac Bears]: Just a week. I mean, if we could just, if Victor can do that, I mean, he's ready. Victor, if you let us know if that's possible, we'll look at this over the next week and we can make it to the next week.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, and I think it was the question around the push carts as well as the neighboring businesses that may be affected. So thank you, Mr. Treanor. You have a question? You can ask it.
[Zac Bears]: It's stationary.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Councilor Caraviello. It sounds like. Mr. Schrader is more than amenable to look at this. He wants a job, move it forward and maybe maybe potentially some amendments if necessary so sounds like that communication is going to happen so I hearing on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to table for one week pending some review by our, our friends, or do you want to speak to us because I'm sorry. Oh, you're seconding on that motion Councilor Scott planning table for one week seconded by Councilor Collins all those in favor. All right. Opposed. Motion passes. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: No, you zoom in right you can zoom in next week. You don't have to come back. If we can well under suspension. We did have Councilor Collins motion to take communications from the mayor. So we have one more paper.
[Zac Bears]: So we have a paper 22-408. June 15 2022 to the Honorable President members of the Metro City Council City Hall and for Massachusetts to 155 fiscal year 2023 budget submission here President morale and members of the City Council pursuant to mass general chapter 44 section 32. I respectfully request and recommend the city council approve the proposed fiscal year 2023 budget as submitted. The total submitted appropriation for all departments, including schools is, and this number has actually changed over the weekend, so let me get the right one in front of me, is $201,154,843.02. Account details will be included within the budget presentation which will be available electronically on June 21 2022, and an interactive and searchable format by the city's website at Medford ma.org slash mayor slash city budget would folks like me to read, Mr. President, I would like to request a copy budget book, as we've received in the previous technically not done reading could someone move to waive the reading. Motion to waive the reading. That's just the reading of the salaries and expenses. We can do this in the future. So moving on the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Schiapoli to waive the reading. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion passes. I'm gonna go to Councilor Collins and then Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Um, just if, if I may, just before there's a second on that motion, Councilor Knight, you would request you're requesting something before we have Councilor Knight has moved to request that we get a hard copy of the fiscal year 2023 budget book for the city of Medford seconded by Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. On the motion of Councilor Collins to table for one week due to that we have not completed all of our budget hearings, have not had time to review a complete budget book and a myriad of other issues. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor on the motion to table for one week? Opposed? Motion passes. If I may actually, Councilor Caraviello, could you take over for me for a minute?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So we will have that on our agenda for next week and we will invite, who are we inviting, sorry?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, all right. Thank you. Is there a motion on the floor? Regular order of business? Oh no, regular order of business perhaps? Motion to receive and place on file, seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. Motion to work back to the regular order of business. Councilor Knight, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. Records. The records of the meeting of June 14th, 2022 are passed to Councilor Caraviello. How'd you find those records? Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. The motion of Councilor Caraviello to approve. Seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor? All those in favor, aye. Do I have all those in favor? All right, I only heard two people, I can't. All right, all those in favor, aye. None opposed, motion passes. Reports of committees, 22-354, June 11th, 2022. Committee of the whole report to follow. This was our first committee meeting on the city budget. Motion to approve. And honestly, it's June 11th, June 14th, 2015, all on the budget. Motion to join and approve all three committee reports and report out any questions. Seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Knight. That's the motion of Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Announcements accolades and remembrances 22-three eight zero offered by Councilor Scarpelli and Councilor Gabriello be it so resolved the city council send our sincere condolences to the family of Richard Edward Fitzpatrick senior, Mr. Fitzpatrick probably served in the US Marine Corps during World War Two and again in the Korean War, Mr. Fitzpatrick was a loyal member of our metric community Councilor separately.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli and Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: All those opposed? Motion passes. If we could all rise for a moment of silence.
[Zac Bears]: motions orders and resolutions 22-389 offered by Councilor Knight, be it so resolved that the Medford City Council requested the Board of Health establish a tick remediation program within the city of Medford Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Any further discussion? Seeing none, on the motion of Councilor Knight, to approve, seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 22-390, Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Collins has withdrawn 22-390. 22-391, offered by Councilor Caraviello, be it so resolved that the Medford City Council requests an independent outside audit of the City of Medford's Municipal Departments and Medford Public Schools. Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion from members of the council. If I may, from the chair, I just like to add to this, that, you know, it seems like by the end of the year. When we have to go to the state and certify everything, we get everything together. But it seems like potentially is up to as much as the other 11 months of the year. It's hard to find out what's going on. I think one of the reasons that we found that out is because we have all these different financial software that doesn't talk to each other. You know, nevermind the fact that you know that was a problem before then we didn't have, you know, staff around for 10 months there. And, and I just want to add one more thing before you go Councilor Knight. I was looking at the capital improvement plan that's proposed in 2021. And it didn't plan to address the issue with financial software until at least fiscal year 2024. And that was assuming we had money to do it. So, you know, if we had addressed that two years ago, then we wouldn't have been in the position of not having the information that we need at the time that we needed to make the decisions that the community entrusts us to make and have the information that the community wants. I'm not amending this resolution, but I just want to add to the point that if we were prioritizing this issue, as the council has filed many, councilors have filed many motions, the council has approved, this is another one in a list of financial responsibility measures, for lack of a better term, that we may have more information at a more timely way and would have been able to see what's happened over the last three weeks coming. So with that, I'll go to councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. On the motion of Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Knight as amended by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. The next five are mine. I don't know if you want to... Okay, and I have no problem with joining them. into well I have no problem with joining the first four into one motion I would like to take 22-396 separately. I'm on the motion of Council night to join papers 22-392, 22-393, 22-394, and 22-395 as seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Those motions are joined. I will read them here. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the city administration create a process to determine the actual budget needs deficit for the city of Medford's operating budget and capital needs. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the city administration develop and release a revenue generation plan to eliminate the budget needs deficit, set goals and benchmarks that can be tracked and provide a clear and reasonable timeline over the next 10 years. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the city administration release all information and a clear timeline for the fiscal 23 budget decision making and when any assumptions were made about the FY 23 ARPA revenue replacement calculation that led to last minute reductions in the FY 23 proposed budget. and be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the city administration release a full accounting of ARPA funds spent in FY21 and FY22, share how much ARPA funding is remaining after FY22, and outline the timeline and spending plan or community outreach plan for remaining ARPA funds. I think those are self-explanatory on my part, so I will go to my fellow councilors for comment.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Councilor Caraviello. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Saint.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Sagan. If someone could offer an amendment from the floor, just to that these be immediately disseminated to the mayor's office of the chief of staff, instead of waiting one week for the records to be approved. So moved. So moved by councilor Tseng. On the motion of councilor Caraviello, seconded by councilor Collins to approve as amended by councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yes, seconded by councilor Caraviello as amended by councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 16 affirmative, zero in the negative, motion passes. Again, if no one minds me reading from the chair, this is 22-396 offered by Vice President Bears, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that no later than July 14th, 2022, the mayor and city administration must demonstrate in writing that a proposition two and a half override is not needed to end the short-term structural deficit and avoid further budget and service cuts in the FY24 budget, as was previously stated by members of the city administration in recent meetings. be it for the result that the city administration will explain the alternative option they will be using to end the structural deficit while avoiding further budget and service cuts in fiscal year 2024. This one's a little bit less self-explanatory, so I will just add, as we saw in previous meetings, and then we actually heard in the Boston Globe, and we read in the Boston Globe, the plan right now for the budget issues that we're in in the short term is to keep cutting. I don't think that that's a solution that the people of Medford want. If there is a potential alternative plan, the statutory deadline for anything to be considered this year relative to an override is August 3rd, it would have to be submitted to the Secretary of State's office. All this resolution is saying is I would like the mayor to demonstrate to us what is the alternative that she is proposing to avoid budget cuts, you know, and not use and not raise revenue through this process. So that's the intent of this resolution. I said July 14th, because that would allow us some time to consider whatever response we get and then make an informed decision based on the information we have. So that's the intent of this resolution. It's certainly not anything more than that at this time.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: Exactly. Yeah and again my intention here is to say if it can be at all avoided just show us how you're going to avoid it that's that's all this resolution is asking for.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Second. Any further comment? On the motion of Councilor Knight to approve, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. And could this also, actually, could there be an amendment from the floor that this also be amended by Councilor Tseng that this be immediately submitted to the Mayor and Chief of Staff?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. seconded by seconded by Councilor Scarpelli all those in favor. All those opposed motion passes 22-398 offered by Councilor Tseng be it resolved that the Metro City Council requested the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, communicate its bus network redesign plan to and solicit feedback from residents in senior living facilities and nursing homes
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor. I oppose motion passes. 22-399 offered by Councilor Tseng be resolved the director of diversity, equity inclusion and share that all city communications are inclusive of all necessary information for residents without access to computers or the internet Councilor.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Knight. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Motion to take papers in the hands of the clerk by Councilor Knight, seconded by Seconded by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 22-410. We're offered by Councilor Knight, whereas the city of Medford faces a structural deficit within its operating budget be it so resolved, the city administration examine the feasibility of increasing the amount of certain fines and fees to create revenue to offset the budgetary gap and be a further result of the city administration provide the council with this analysis prior to the close of the fiscal year Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? On the motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 22-411, be it so resolved that the city administration examine the feasibility of auctioning off surplus. Oh, my apologies. Withdrawn. Hold on, I want to make sure there's nothing left on here.
[Zac Bears]: I don't believe it.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I'm gonna just, I know we have a potential motion to adjourn, but Just wanna give one last opportunity, public participation, anyone in the audience here or anyone on Zoom, you can raise your hand for public participation, please let us know. Seeing none, I will entertain Councilor Knight's motion to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor? All those opposed? The meeting is adjourned. and we will be convening tomorrow at 6 p.m. for further budget hearings. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, Vice President Bears motion to take papers 22-381 and 22-384 suspend the rules to take those papers on the motion of items and bears to suspend the rules to take papers 22-381 and 22-384 out of order seconded by Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Mr. Walsh for being here. I think this is an exciting use of those parcels to take advantage of the new office to zone and bring in the commercial development that we've all been talking so much about as a necessary piece of a revenue strategy to effectively fund our city budget, which I'm sure you'll hear about in a moment from me. Pursuant to Chapter 48, I believe we have to refer this to the Community Development Board, and then we will receive their comments, and then we could consider it after a duly noticed hearing. At this point, I certainly have no objections. I would motion to refer this to the Community Development Board, and also encourage them to initiate their process and bring it back before us as quickly as they can.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Madam President. I don't normally go without a mask in the chamber but given the fact that I think. This is such an essential topic and maybe people might want to see my lips moving as I speak for a number of minutes. That's why I've taken my mask off if anyone has questions. I just want to start before I give my presentation to say that My attitude as a councilor over the past two terms has been one of collaboration and building trust and bringing this community together to advance shared goals and shared priorities to build a better future for our community. I think that this council has gone above and beyond to try to work with this mayor and her administration on a number of issues that run the gamut of all the priorities that we have. And when it comes to this budget process that that return collaboration has not been there. One of the things that has been really most impactful to me over the past week, 10 days, two weeks, it's blurring together a little bit, has been just how many people have reached out and communicated that they don't know what's going on. That they're not sure why the city budget is in the position that it's in. They're not sure why suddenly, you know, changes were made to the proposed budget at the last minute that have such significant impacts on so many of our city departments and our public schools. And that lack of trust or loss of trust in the integrity and the communication coming from the city administration is going to have impacts going forward. If it isn't repaired. My goal here is to try to explain from what I know from the budget meetings we've had from the discussions that we've had with city staff. and other entities involved in these decision-making processes, what we know, why things happen the way they happened, and what we can do to ask that they be fixed. And again, it is essential that the administration take action to restore the trust of this council, to restore the trust of the residents of this community in the information and the integrity of our budget process And I hope that by providing a shared set of facts that we can all agree on, that sets the table for the next steps of accountability and of making a plan to address these problems. So I'm going to now share my screen and give this presentation.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, if I do run over, I do apologize. Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. This is the title slide. Medford City Budget Review. Long-term underfunding leads to yearly shortfalls, crumbling infrastructure, and vulnerability to shocks. The causes of our city's budget crisis go back decades. The City of Medford does not bring in enough revenue to meet the spending needs for our city services, for public schools, and for the maintenance of city buildings and infrastructure. There are many reasons why one proposition two and a half limits the growth of the city's main source of revenue property taxes to two and a half percent per year, plus new construction and major renovation also called new growth. That's below the rate of inflation and certainly below the rate at which the cost of a city grow like insurance trash removal and construction costs. We've also had for a long time a lack of new commercial development that's restricted a major tool to raise revenue. This council has taken action on that with the new zoning ordinance as we just saw. before this presentation where we are finally bringing in the kind of projects that the city has needed for a long time. The impacts of our budget crisis are serious and longstanding. We have bare bones budgets and low staffing levels for most of our city departments, like our Department of Public Works or our planning department, our law department, our library, health department and recreation. We heard a number of those stories tonight. And it means that Medford provides fewer services than our residents deserve. We've seen a very small real dollar growth to the Medford Public Schools budget after you adjust for inflation, limited purchase of new materials and resources and new staff hires, reliance on fees from families to fund programs, limits on proposals for our educator pay and their union contracts, and years of deferred maintenance that lead to costly repairs. Some of those deferred maintenance needs we see every day. huge infrastructure backlog in the hundred million dollar range just for our roads and sidewalks we're paying out thousands of dollars a year and claims for injuries and property damage crumbling city and school buildings, like our fire headquarters, Medford High School pieces of this very building that we're in right now City Hall, and not enough investments in our capital maintenance to even lower the backlog. City and school staff are often then scrambling to fund operating budgets through one-time grants. I can't tell you how many times we've had someone before us saying, you know, we'd be better off with a grant writer, because that's going to bring in more money than advocating for the city, or I'm writing grants all the time, or we're trying to organize volunteers. These are things that should be happening in an operating budget. The next two slides are to show you a couple of charts that illustrate this. This is the mayor's initial proposed budget for fiscal 23 we were lucky to be presented with this last Tuesday on a single top sheet of paper here, instead of a budget book as would normally be provided. The first column is our recurring revenue what we can expect to come in every year. The second column includes the one time revenue that this administration had been expecting to come in to fund the budget of about $11.25 million. That one time revenue is what we call a structural deficit. It's revenue that we can't expect to have in the future, but we're still using it to balance our operating budget. And here it says a definition of structural deficit, use of one-time revenue, in this case ARPA, that's federal money, revenue replacement, one of the specific restricted uses, and free cash reserves that were used to cover recurring spending. The third column here is the initial proposed spending that was initially proposed prior to June of 2022. And then the column here is an estimate of potentially what we actually should be spending. Now, this is an estimate because we don't actually know what we should be spending. I estimated that perhaps our costs really, our needs are really 20% higher than the amount that we're spending. It's my hope that it's less than that. It's certainly my hope that it's not more than that. But I felt that that was a relatively good estimate that we could use in the short term And as everyone here knows what I've been campaigning on and advocating for for several years, is that we assess our needs for our operating budget and our capital assets, and then make a plan to raise the revenue to actually meet those needs. This is what the same chart would look like just the revenue and spending amounts over the last three fiscal years, and again fiscal 23 is the mayor's initial proposed budget before this month of June, 2022. before the pandemic, we were not using any one time revenue to balance the budget in fiscal year 21 we used almost $6 million from our free cash reserves to balance the budget. Last year we used over $12 million in ARPA revenue replacement to balance the budget. And this year the mayor's what the initial budget proposal that had been worked on for months had rested on was the assumption that we would use 11.25 million a piece from that from free cash and about 8 million in ARPA revenue replacement to balance this year's budget. What you can also see is that our estimated needs deficit isn't shrinking over this time, it's growing. So the gap between what we're spending every year and what we should be spending to provide the services that residents need and maintain and repair our capital assets has been growing worse over the past four years. The key takeaways here are that we have a long-term city budget crisis. Our city budget for years has had an unstudied and unknown needs deficit, meaning that our spending needs are greater than the available revenue. Starting in fiscal year 21, the city also began to have a structural deficit, meaning the use of one-time revenue sources to balance the city budget. This city needs a short-term plan to eliminate the structural deficit and a long-term plan to eliminate the needs deficit. The only major options before us in terms of addressing these are the following. One, more budget cuts to end the structural deficit, further reducing services and increasing the needs deficit. In the medium to long term, we can increase new growth revenue from development, especially new commercial and mixed use development that brings in the most money based on how our tax structure works, but as anyone in construction knows, going from the process that we started here tonight for a new development through design and permitting and then construction is a multi year process. So any building that we permit today is not going to help us in the next two, three, maybe even four fiscal years. In terms of our operating budget, we could also raise revenue through a proposition two and a half override, which would close the structural deficit. And then we could actually assess the needs deficit to determine if we need a further override for our operating budget. Finally, for our capital expenses, we could raise revenue through a proposition two and a half debt exclusion to fund items like a new fire headquarters, a new Medford High School, building maintenance and renovation and fixing our $100 million road and sidewalk backlog. Now, I've just told you about the long term context that we are in as a city. What people have been incredibly concerned and stressed and confused about is why we've had issues in this fiscal year budget. The title of this slide is shortfalls and shocks in fiscal year 23. It's not the library's fault. The fiscal 23 budget process rested on inaccurate revenue assumptions. Now, what's been going around the city is that money came in from library donations and that's why, you know, we don't have the money we need. The answer is really a little different. Last minute cuts to the proposed fiscal 23 budget were an unnecessary curveball that resulted from a lack of adequate planning. The fiscal 23 budget numbers presented so far in this presentation have been the initial proposed budget prior to June 2022 on June 2 2022 this council received an email from the city administration that stated that we did not have the expected ARPA revenue replacement figure that was being planned to use one-time revenue to balance the budget. And therefore, they were going to be presenting us with an amended budget that had a significant amount of cuts relative to the budget that they had been working on and planning for months and that departments had sent in their figures about. Throughout the fiscal year 2023 budget process beginning months ago, the city administration assumed that we would have between seven and 8 million in one time ARPA revenue replacement for the budget this year. But according to discussions with city staff in these meetings with the CLA consultant as well from Clifton, Larson and Allen, I believe who was helping with the auditing and federal compliance, it was clear months ago that that seven to $8 million figure could not be guaranteed and that a final figure could not be calculated until the city's books were reviewed and cleaned up after 10 months from July 2021 to May 2022, where the city did not have a chief financial officer. Sometime in late May or early June, the mayor and the leadership team were given a final fixture figure of just approximately $4 million for ARPA revenue replacement in the fiscal 23 budget, due to the US Treasury Department's ARPA rules that counted several private donations to our library into our city funds and counted them as revenue and for the terms of the final revenue replacement calculation. I want to be clear with the residents. Medford did not lose any money, but now 3.75 million or so in revenue that had been assumed for the available for the fiscal 23 budget must now be spent on different restricted ARPA uses. This assumption that we would have about $4 million that we did not have for this budget, led the administration to make last minute crop cuts across the proposed fiscal 23 budget for our city departments and our public schools. If this situation and the uncertainty had been shared months ago with the city council and with the public, the city and its departments and the public school system could have prepared for multiple revenue scenarios. The city council would have been informed as we have been requesting for months about the financial situation of the city and our city staff and our Medford residents wouldn't have experienced such urgent and unexpected reductions to the proposed fiscal 23 budget at the very last minute. This is what the situation looks like in a chart. The first column is the initial proposed revenue, assuming 11.25 million in one time revenue that reduced to about 7.5 million due to the inaccurate assumptions about the ARPA revenue calculation. What that means for our city is that spending is also significantly reduced by about $5 million a little less than $5 million, including the school department having 2.8 million less than they had expected city departments, having 1.7 million less than expected, and a small decrease in the debt service payments for the city. What does that mean in real terms. It means that city departments that have been desperately asking for additional staff for years will not be getting it. It means that the public school system laid off more educators than they expected for the next year and isn't doesn't know if they'll be able to bring them all back. And it means that across the city, we are asking our city departments and our public schools to once again, do more with less. Now, I'm not saying that I have a magic bullet here that could have solved it, but I do know for a fact that finding out at the beginning of June, that we have to make significant budget reductions in the proposed budget has led to us not having a budget book for the city council, not knowing the information we need to know or the full picture of our city budget. It's led to the school department finance team scrambling to find the cuts that would have the least impact on our students and our teachers in the classroom. It's led to city departments coming to us, like our library did tonight, and saying that they are not going to have enough basic funding to provide the key and core services that they should be providing. And at the end of the day, what it means is that we are once again, at best, kicking the can down the road, and at worst, actively creating situations that will hurt people and reduce services in this community. I want to close my presentation with some action recommendations and explain to residents how they can help. One, I have some recommendations to address our long term budget needs. First, we need to determine the actual budget needs deficit for the city of Medford's operating budget, and our capital needs pieces of this work have been done, the school committee process over the past two years has significantly improved to where they are actually beginning to assess their need and share that number. In addition, departments like our Department of Public Works have done comprehensive reviews of capital assets like our roads and sidewalks, so we actually have an accurate picture of how big the problem is and what it will cost to solve it. But those are not comprehensive assessments of our needs deficit for our operating budget and our capital assets. Second, We I would implore the mayor to develop and release a revenue generation plan to meet the budget needs deficit to set goals and benchmarks that can be tracked and provide a clear and reasonable timeline for that over the next 10 years. I'm not saying that all the new revenue we need needs to come from specific sources. My best hope is that it can come from sources like new growth and commercial development, and the exact kind of thing that we're trying to bring into this city, that we've seen cities in similar positions in recent history like Cambridge and Somerville do, where they've had that commercial development and mixed use development that has significantly grown their revenues. However, I'm also not ruling out without studying the other options before us to raise revenue. two for the short term. My recommendations are one that the city council and the school committee hold the mayor accountable to release all information and a clear timeline for the assumptions that were made in the FY 23 ARPA revenue replacement calculation that led to the fiscal year 23 budget cuts we deserve to know what the administration knew, and when they knew it, because the last minute release of this issue and information has caused significant harm and pain and a district just, you know, disruption to the trust and loss of trust in the information coming from the city administration. The first step to repairing that is to let us know the truth of what happened, why the decisions that were made were made, and then to acknowledge any mistakes and move forward from that point. Without that restoring trust will be incredibly difficult. Second, the mayor must release a full accounting of the ARPA funds from the Federal American Rescue Plan Act that were spent in fiscal year 21 and fiscal year 22, then share how much is remaining in American Rescue Act funds after fiscal year 2022, and outline the timeline and spending plan for the remaining ARPA funds. Finally, by July 14 2022. It is my belief, considering that the mayor has said that not only is the fiscal year 2023 budget incredibly tight, but that the fiscal year 2024 budget, maybe the same or worse, that to avoid another year and fiscal 2024. and hopefully to mitigate the impact on fiscal 2023, the mayor must demonstrate to us that she has an alternative plan to a Proposition 2.5 override and that we do not need a Proposition 2.5 override to address the short-term structural deficit. If that cannot be demonstrated, I don't believe it is a responsible and reasonable choice to move forward with a massive structural deficit that will essentially mean more cuts, more negative impacts in the future. Finally, in terms of community action steps, I asked the up the people of Medford to attend our upcoming city council budget hearings. And to attend our budget presentation this council has requested and preferred that we have a budget presented to us on June 21, which would give us an additional meeting to review the budget, however it's beginning to look like the budget will not be presented to us until June 28, which is just two days before the state imposed deadline for a city to pass a budget, basically putting a budget before us with a take it or leave it, and there cannot be any sort of discussion or process around it, which I think is really not a collaborative approach. And that's a kind word. I ask you to come on the 21st to the 28th and speak up and share what this budget impact means to you. I also ask you to contact the mayor and ask for a release of information about the decision-making process that led us to this point. to state your support for the recommendations in this presentation, if you so agree, and to ask whether or not the mayor will explore an override to eliminate the structural deficit and stop further austerity and budget cuts in fiscal 2024. Finally, I ask you to organize community campaigns to advocate for solutions to address the long-term budget needs deficit we have here in Medford. And to my fellow councilors, I thank you for allowing me to make this presentation. And I would ask you, if possible, that we could vote on these recommendations either one by one or as a package tonight, subsequent to this presentation. And that's the conclusion of my presentation. My hopes are that residents feel a little bit more informed about what has happened over the past months that led us to this point, the context and situation of our city budget, and at least my vision of some recommendations that could help us to move forward and make a plan to address these issues. I just want to say one more thing. I've also been made aware that tonight, a video was posted by the mayor. explaining something about the city budget. I obviously haven't had time to review it, as I've been here in the chambers and meetings about the city budget. And I personally think that that sort of message could have been made directly to us, and should have been made directly to us I don't know what it says so I don't know if it answers these questions but a presentation like that, I believe should have been made to this council on the first day of our budget hearings, explaining exactly what happened, and exactly why we're in the situation we're in. And I think that it once again shows that there's a lot of effort that's going to have to be undertaken to restore trust in the administration, and the idea that a collaborative approach is what this city needs to move forward. This council sits waiting for collaboration, but we have waited a long time, and when it doesn't come, it means we don't have the information we need to answer the questions and make the decisions that this community elected us to make. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I'll keep it brief. First, I just want to say part of the discussion around these options, I think is right to your point. You know, would I feel comfortable going to the voters just for willy nilly anything? No, I'd wanna hear demonstrated from that office. This is why we don't need it, or if we can't prove that we don't need it, this is exactly what we need it for. So I don't disagree with you at all that there needs to be accountability and clear, clear path if we're gonna go down that road. What I really wanna say is just to anyone watching this, who's been watching over the past, has it only been seven days since our first budget hearing? It feels like seven weeks, but over the past seven days to anyone who's been watching, I think you found a very unexpected unity of belief and commitment and the ideas of how we move forward here around this budget from a group of people who come from different political backgrounds and different political affiliations. Whoever thought our revolution and Adam Knight and George Scarpelli and Rick Caraviello would all be equally outraged about something, or that they would all agree to the same set of facts about a situation, or that they would all say, you know, we have to have these serious conversations. It's amazing. when something is truly wrong and when the truth is truly not out there, how much that can unify people and unify a community. And I just wanna close by saying that the truth, if it is ever said and released and comes out about what has happened to bring us to this point, if the mayor chooses to do that, that can unify this community too. And I hope that's what will happen. That is the goal of what I've put forward tonight is to just get everyone on the same page. This is what happened. And to be honest, one of the most important traits of leadership, it's just admitting when you made a mistake and being willing to say that this is what happened. This is why we made the mistake and this is how we're fixing it. And if that came out, there would be a lot more trust and a lot more collaboration and a lot less confusion and misunderstanding. And quite frankly, a lot less finger pointing, because that's what's happening here. It's, you know, we're getting fingers pointed at us all the time. Why'd you say this? Why'd you do that? Why aren't you doing this? That's no way to be a unified city that's going to achieve a real plan to catch up to all of our neighbors who have passed us by. We're in the best position, all of them, if you ask me, we're a little piece of every one of our neighbors here in Medford, different communities, different neighborhoods, different visions of what a city can be all in one with a river that unites us at a location that is in such demand. I can't even begin to tell you how much people wanna come here. All we have to do is come together get that plan out there, and let's just see the amazing things that can happen here in Medford. So the only way we're gonna get there is with the truth. This is an attempt to seek truth, and I hope that our partner across the hall in the executive branch will meet us there. Thank you, Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Um, it may be even easier if I were to just put them on the agenda next week for for the council and then they're on the agenda the public can see them we can all vote on them. Sounds to me like we have agreement tonight, and presentation is not going to change between now and next week because it's just a fact so I'm happy to put those on the agenda for next week's meeting and we can vote on them there. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: We're receiving this motion to receive the paper in place on file.
[Zac Bears]: We're gonna come back to the records at the end of the meeting. We'll start with reports of committees. Reports of committees, 22-354, June 7th, 2022, committee of the whole report to follow. This was our first budget meeting. Motion to approve, Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 22-354, Wednesday, June 8th, Committee of the Whole report, budget meetings. Motion, Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Knight to approve. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. 22-380, on 22-380, motion to table from Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes to table 22-38 to offer by Councilor Knight be it so resolved that the city administration legal department report back to the council on what steps the council can take to give city employees and retirees preference in the city's affordable housing lottery programs Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry about that I was getting a message from the clerk. Is there anything I need to do. So, on the motion that counts and I'd seconded by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor. Opposed motion passes 22-three eight three offered by Councilor Knight. It's so resolved that the city included crosswalk restoration of the curbing on the corner of Rockwell Terrace and Fulton Street as part of the Gillis Park accessibility project Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Motion of Councilor Knight to approve, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. We're gonna skip my motion. We'll go to 22-386 offered by Councilor Knight, being so resolved that the Medford Chamber of Commerce be invented to discuss parking needs and potential for a parking garage in Medford Square.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, Mr. President, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. for the discussion on the motion of Council night to a second seconded by Councilor carmielo all those in favor. Motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: About President Morales.
[Zac Bears]: I'd actually like to go to Mr. Carroll's public participation paper.
[Zac Bears]: Did we table it?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great, okay. then if folks do not mind me speaking from the chair on the town hall guide, it's very simple resolution. Any objection? Go for it. 22-385 offered by Vice President Bears, be it so resolved by the Medford City Council that residents of Medford be notified of an inaccurate and false mailing sent out by quote, town hall guide that was not sent by the city of Medford and contains incorrect contact information for city departments and emergency services. I was made aware that a mailing has gone out, kind of like a magnet you'd put on something or a calendar that just has like 508 area codes for the city of Medford for our police for our city departments. There's kind of some seals on it that make it seem like it may be an official document and I think it's worth letting people know that is not an official document. Motion of Councilor Knight to approve seconded by Councilor carb yellow all those in favor. I was opposed motion passes. Public participation. to the Honorable City Council, June 8th, 2022. Councilors, the undersigned respectfully pray for. I would like to speak and try to get help with the ongoing issue of my mother's sidewalks. She is handicapped, so I am helping her. I've been trying to get them done since before COVID started. I had engineering DPW and tree warning down on a site meeting in October, 2021, and was guaranteed they would be completed by the end of October, which it is not. I have photos of how bad the sidewalks are. using a tape measure due to the lack of drainage. The curbing is sinking as well. I tried going through the mayor, but have yet to be able to set up a meeting with her since before Easter. Signed Erica Chavez from Cabot Road and her mom's address is on Sydney Street. Is Ms. Chavez available on Zoom? Do we have a hand up?
[Zac Bears]: It's not. Just give one more chance, if you could raise your hand on Zoom using the raise hand function. All right, on the motion to table, Mr. Clerk, if you could please reach out to this member and let them know that it's tabled and we'd be happy to take it up next week. And also if they could let us know if they'll be present, we would be able to recognize them at the beginning, potentially, of the meeting. On the motion of the table of Councilor Crabiello, and that would be included in unfinished business, correct? Seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. Want me to keep going? Okay. Yeah, sorry. I should keep going. It's the, 22-387, bus.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I should tonight. 22-387 offered by President Morell. Be it so resolved that Medford City Council requests that the MBTA hold an in-person meeting to solicit feedback from residents on the bus network redesign and its impacts on the inner core. Be it further resolved that the administration notice the entire city about virtual meeting of the bus network redesign to take place June 16th at 6 p.m. on Zoom, and I believe that is a meeting hosted by the MBTA.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Morell, President Morell.
[Zac Bears]: Second. Thank you, President Morell. Any further discussion? On the 16th, yes, we will be at a budget hearing.
[Zac Bears]: and not to speak for the president, it may be in another budget hearing next week. So the process continues. On the motion of President Morell, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. I, yes, one moment. I'm happy to mediate public participation. And then the last thing we have is the record. So maybe, and I'm gonna- All right, I'll come back up. But so public participation, if there's a member of the public who'd like to speak, they may come up to the podium and form a line. Please give us your name and address for the record. Also, if you'd like to speak in public participation, please raise your hand on Zoom and we will recognize you as well.
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely. I just want to, before I recognize Councilor Cabrera, I want to thank you for doing that outreach to your neighbors, getting them more informed. We've been trying to do the same with the resources that we have.
[Zac Bears]: And we know it's not enough.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just want to note a couple of things that I actually maybe ask something of my fellow Councilors, but first is just that we were also discussing the importance of the library earlier tonight for people who don't have access to technology and how that is another essential service that we are trying to get funded. I just want to maybe ask my fellow Councilors, I know this is not standard protocol, perhaps for next week we could put a motion on to ask the diversity, equity and inclusion director to think about the inclusion of people who don't have technology in our city communications, Councilor Tseng. And I had another one, but I'll leave it at that for now, because I've forgotten. Any further public participation on any topic of any import before the council? Yes, I'm just making sure no one in the room, and then also just announcing one time for Zoom. I see Bill Giglio. I will unmute you. Please just give your name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And that is true. We did not mention it. Of course, we did salute the flag. Thank you. Mr. Castagnetti, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. There's one more item, which is the record since they were passed to me. You want to give up? All right.
[Zac Bears]: I found the records in order and I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to adjourn by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: All those opposed? Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to waive the public comment period. Second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thanks, Diana, for being here. Does National Grid plan to come back before the Council regarding the larger Riverside Ave project anytime soon, or is that now on hold?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, certainly if it does come back up, coordination would be preferred. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: We give them- Motion to waive the public comment period.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to revert to regular order business.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to take paper 22-something 361 off the table.
[Zac Bears]: Second the motion.
[Zac Bears]: Motion by Councilor Scarpelli to revert back to regular order business. Seconded by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor. Motion is approved. Records. The records of the meeting of May 31st, 2022 are passed to Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng, how'd you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: Motion by Councilor Tseng to approve the records of the meeting of May 31st, 2022. Seconded by. So moved. Seconded by everybody. Both Councilor Collins. All those in favor.
[Zac Bears]: All those opposed? Motion passes. Reports of committees. 22-354, June 1st, Committee of the Whole report to follow. This was... Trees, this was trees. All right, this was a meeting on the tree ordinance. I believe we kept the paper and committee pending. Basically a complete overhaul of the draft ordinance by... the legal counsel motion accounts right to approve seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. I motion passes. Announcements, accolades, and remembrances. 22-372 offered by Councilor Knight. Be it so resolved that Bedford City Council congratulate the students of the class of 2022 on their recent graduation. Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. And I will just note for the audience that Councilor Tseng is a class of 22 member from Harvard University, not Medford High School. Congratulations. Harvard University. College, right? Oh, God. Yeah, Harvard, right? Congratulations to the class of 22, wherever they may be graduating from. The motion of Councilor Tseng seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. Oh, was it Councilor Nielsen? Oh, geez. Oh, cause we're going to council. I'm sorry. My bad. Thank you. Yeah, I'm not off. I'm not up here very often, I got ahead of myself. Sorry about that. 22-373 offered by Councilor Tseng, be it resolved that the Medford City Council recognize Pride Month and affirm its support of the LGBTQ plus community. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further comments from members of the Council? Motion of Councilor Saint, seconded by Councilor Knight. I'll just add that yes, there's a extensive list of events. Some of them have already occurred. I know that a lot of planning went into it and hopefully some of them will be a welcome respite from otherwise difficult budget conversations that we're gonna be having over the next few weeks. On the motion of Councilor Saint, seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. 22-374 offered by Councilor Knight being so resolved the city administration installed digital messaging boards in our public parks to display city notices field rental permits schedules and other neighborhood information Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Any further comments?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Knights, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. 22-375 offered by Councilor Knight being so resolved that the city solicitor provide the council with a draft ordinance requiring the city administration to present the city council with a review of the word articles on a monthly basis with a timely resolution Councilor Knight, Mr. President, thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: I guess this will be our one ordinance of the year. Yes, Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Anyone else? Seeing none, on the motion of Councilor Knights, seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. I'm going to turn it back over to President Morell. And we're withdrawing 22-376.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilor Gonza. I look forward to hopefully scheduling this meeting soon. And I just wanna thank, I believe Councilor Falco actually was the initial sponsor of this ordinance in 2021. And I think it was incredibly relevant then as we were looking at it relative to the pandemic. And now as we are seeing those protections go away, as well as the ongoing market issues and housing crisis. I think it's really, this could have helped people. And I think if we can move it quickly, it would be of help to people in the future. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilor Knight. I think this is a great idea and I'm glad to be of some help in moving it forward. Quite frankly, I think, as we saw earlier tonight, there's a basic aversion to basic accountability currently happening in this building. Sure, there were different tones used, but I don't think anyone on this Council went beyond the pale of wanting basic information and requests that we ask of the administration to share with the public to be provided to us in a prompt and timely manner. It really is a question of basic due diligence. And from my personal feeling, basic respect for the city council as an elected body in the city of Medford. To be honest, I'm a little sad that it's come to this. I do think that there are going to be a lot of procedural advantages to doing it this way, where you don't have to go and check in every time or try to keep track of your own papers at least. Now we'll have it all in one place you know there's plenty of stuff that Councilor Caraviello has put forward that I've been interested in but I don't remember the paper number and he filed it. So I think there's a lot of synergy here that that is that is useful but I just think the fact that we're putting this forward. not just as a common sense reform that we could do at any time, but very specifically because we're not receiving communications and responses in a prompt and timely manner is truly sad. So I'm glad we're gonna do this. I think it's a good idea. I think it would be a good idea under any circumstances, but under these circumstances, I think it's not just a good idea, but us doing our basic due diligence. to let the public know, hey, we're asking the questions. We're just not getting the answers. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilor Tseng and Councilor Collins for putting this forward. There's some incredibly dark and twisted forces at work in this country. seeking to impose their will on others, to deny basic medical services and care to people of all stripes. I mean, this is fundamentally about our basic freedoms and our basic liberties as people in the United States. These folks and their big dark money are spending millions and millions and millions of dollars to abuse and misread and twist the United States Constitution to the point of saying that a parent cannot provide basic medical care that their doctor says is necessary to their own child, that an individual person and their doctor cannot make a decision about their own medical care. I'm grateful to hear that reproductive health is going to be included in this ordinance, because that was what I was going to add to amend here. This is fundamentally about the most human right of all, the right to control your own body, the right to control your own medical care, and the just deeply shameful, shameful movement to destroy that freedom, to destroy our constitution, and to take away some of the most basic of rights must be opposed at every level. The idea that a parent trying to get care for their child, having to flee their own state and come here to get that care, and then being treated like a fugitive, asking us to report them report them so they can face criminal action when they return home is disgusting. And if we can even play a small part, if we can even help one person feel welcomed and safe and understanding that here in the city of Medford and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, that we still believe in the constitution and the basic American values of the right to choose and the right to control your own body and the right to liberty, and the right to just be accepted and live your life and make what is an incredibly, any medical decision is difficult, make an incredibly difficult decision without worrying about the watchful eye of some overlord who says what you can do and you can do and you can do and you can't do with your body. I think we should do it so I'm very thankful for you for putting this forward and I just can't even begin to speak to the completely anti democratic anti populist anti, you know, 70% of people in this country are saying what's going on here is completely wrong, but we're going to have a Supreme Court got it all. a Supreme Court that that isn't even justly appointed a Supreme Court that, you know, is appointed by hundreds of millions of dollars of dark money, it's just wrong. So if we can do anything I think we should I would move to refer this to the public health and community safety subcommittee. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: You're always very curious and I appreciate your curiosity, but this is not allowing 12 year olds to do whatever. This is medical science. Yes, it most certainly is. It most certainly is. This is about medical science. This is about doctors and families making decisions. And I don't think that anyone should be getting in the way of that.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information. In Texas recently, their attorney general, and I won't get into the fact that he's been under indictment for eight years, but their attorney general issued an order that said that the Department of Social Services should investigate families, potentially take away kids for getting this kind of medical care as recommended, you know, as discussed by the doctor. the Attorney General of Texas was ordering social services to investigate families and potentially take away their children. Now, if someone came here to get that care, because it sounds like Texas isn't a very favorable place, this would say, well, we're not going to tell you what kind of care they got, A, because it's medical privacy. And I think we've had quite a few discussions about medical privacy over the past three years. But it says, we're not gonna report you to the cops in Texas so they can take away your kid. That's what it says.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, I think Councilor Knight reiterated a major point here, which is just saying that we're not going to try to enforce the laws of other states and jurisdictions when it comes to this issue. So that's all this means. Secondly, this is going to subcommittee for discussion, so we're not making a final decision tonight. And third, the facts are very clear that people who, whatever age, whatever age, this says individuals, any age, that people of any age who, and as Mr. Petronio said, that people need to work this out on their own. Now, working this out on their own, there's a support system there. People who receive support, who receive kind guidance and advice are much, much less likely to commit acts of self-harm. than people who are told, you can't access this, this is a crime, you can't do this, and we'll come after you. That's the difference here. People who are penalized and criminalized for their medical decisions, those are the people who commit self-harm. Those are the people who get hurt. People who receive support and advice and the kind of network of people behind them to make a very difficult decision, which we all acknowledge and said many times is an incredibly difficult decision. in some cases, you know, those are the people who go on to not face self-harming, face social isolation. So, you know, that those, regardless of comments made, those are the facts. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks for doing this, Carol. And I just wanted to thank you. I know you've been long time residents of the community. I was lucky enough to be in the band with your son, Patrick. And I think it's just amazing how much you've done already and finding the synergy with the library to expand your program to the whole community. I've seen so many people going through the library already, and I know that they're gonna benefit greatly from your business. I did have one question. I know it's already in here, but just for the benefit of the public, you guys are gonna be open from nine to three at the library. And is that Monday through Friday?
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Fantastic. Thank you so much for doing this and we're all excited to approve it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. In this specific case only, I can say that DCR is doing a slightly better job because they were down with the mower across the street from me doing their jurisdiction of the Roosevelt Circle area. But it's truly a mess. You went through it very well. In addition to that, we still have a broken bridge with no timeline for repair. There's actually a bunch of rusted iron now sitting on Roosevelt Circle behind a Jersey barrier. So, I mean, it's deteriorated significantly. It looks horrible.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, thanks Nate for coming up completely agree with you. And, you know, we've talked about it in about three different contexts tonight already about curb appeal whether it's roads and sidewalks park parks some of it obviously a state jurisdiction but there's a lot that we can do in our own in this budget we had a meeting last week. Um, sending our key priorities to the mayor's office for what we'd like to see in the budget. Um, one of them was an additional code enforcement officer, which is, those are the folks who go around and enforce the civil code. So maintenance of stuff, uh, you know, are your, you know, are you throwing nips on the side of the street? Are you, you know, that kind of thing. Um, uh, We've also asked for additional staffing at our DPW those are the folks who go around and both maintain parks, as well as can kind of say to somebody Hey, you can't throw that their code enforcement obviously could work on that as well. We've been pretty, at least we've had some preliminary discussions. The city has one animal control officer for the entire city. parks as well as the Brooks estate which is a large area, and anything that goes on on city streets and sidewalks, and even private property, you know as folks know, in certain cases. And, you know, those are all certainly areas where we've we put an advocacy to the mayor's office to make those priorities. To your point around overrides and debt exclusions Medford's one of the communities that's never done one in 45 years since proposition two and a half was passed in 1980. And I think one of the things that I'm concerned. about, and I'm concerned we're gonna hear when the budget is presented to us hopefully soon, is that it's another do more with less situation. They're gonna come in and say inflation's 8%, healthcare costs are up this much, the union contracts are up this much. We can add one person across, not in each department, across the whole city. That's what I am expecting we're gonna hear from the administration. We're in a very tight situation. I certainly agree with you on the priorities. And I certainly agree with my fellow Councilors as well there are a lot of opportunities around us with development and bringing in new growth to the city that can provide some of those additional revenues to the to the city budget to hire these positions. But at the end of the day, and I know this is not something that certainly not something I want to say and it's certainly not something you want to hear. We've been kind of screaming into the void a little bit on a lot of these issues for the past several months and I think some of my Councilors would even say for the past several years. So we're going to fight hard I think we're going to fight maybe maybe harder than we even have before around the budget and getting those priorities that we agree on funded, but at the end of the day. They're just decisions that are out of our hands that really are tying the entire city up on a whole host of issues. And it all trickles back down to the basic quality of life residents, and why isn't the sidewalk patched. Why is there a crack. you know, that someone's tripping over and hurting themselves. Why is there, you know, hooliganism or whatever else you may want to call it. I knew it was graduation weekend, so that would be where I would put my bet on the beer cans. Not to say it's right, but just my guess. And, you know, do we even have enough money to send someone out on overtime on Saturday, right? Saturday morning to clean up. I don't know. That's the situation we're in right now. So I'm hoping for a better outcome. I know we're gonna be fighting for a better outcome, but I just wanna be realistic with you and any resident who comes before this council that we are to a great extent at the mercy of the city administration when it comes to the budget and that we're gonna try to do our best and fight as hard as we can. But there are a lot of hard decisions that need to be made and they need to start being made or we're gonna keep having the same conversation over and over again. And you're going to call Rick and he's going to say he called somebody and then we're going to get the beer cleaned up three days later and then. next year that's going to be out there again, because we didn't add that code enforcement officer. We didn't add that DPW parks person. So I'll leave it at that. There's a little bit of a rant, but it's just, I share your frustration and we're doing what we can.
[Zac Bears]: Papers 21-631 and 22-023.
[Zac Bears]: I'll leave it on.
[Zac Bears]: It seems pretty dead to me.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think we have.
[Zac Bears]: I would then, I'll withdraw my motion.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. As all of us behind this rail know, Paul Moki has been a public servant in this city for 38 years. He certainly has been in front of this council many times in my nearly three years on the council and helped us spearhead the zoning recodification was incredibly helpful throughout that process attending you know hours and hours of meetings working with our zoning consultant making that all of that possible as well as all of the constituent service and management work that he did on a day-to-day basis. His last day is this Thursday and I was able to luckily able to catch a quick celebration and thank him for his service just yesterday. So I just want to congratulate him and then send that congratulations along through the clerk and on behalf of the council for his many years of service and hopefully we will be able to find someone to fill his shoes quickly. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, in my everlasting persistence for consensus, I respect the request that we vote again on the snow removal ordinance, and my fingers are crossed that we will reach that intended goal. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'll take six six is good enough.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for putting forward this resolution. Fundamentally, this is about the future of work in Medford, in Massachusetts, and in our country. And these big tech corporations have gotten out ahead of the law and out ahead of regulation. And now they're trying to solidify that position. In California, a very similar ballot question was passed by a very close margin. And the only reason it passed at all is because Lyft and Uber and DoorDash and these large companies spent tens to hundreds of millions of dollars on ad campaigns to confuse the voters, to confuse the issue. And they're doing the same thing here. If you ever see any of the ads, they say yes to independent drivers, yes to supporting drivers, And most of the time, you know, the people that they have in those advertisements are the people that they're talking about. You know, the people who drive occasionally, you know, once in a while. But the fact of the matter is over half of the rides on these services and half of the trips on these DoorDash, you know, delivery type services are done by 9%. of the workers. So the vast majority of this service is being provided by a small number of workers and those folks, they want to be called employees. If right now, a lot of these folks split between multiple services. So even under the proposed benefits that have been written by their bosses, they're not going to qualify for health insurance, even though the bosses ad say they will, they're not going to qualify for benefits that the bosses ad say they will. And beyond that, I think it's pretty clear you've got these multi-billion dollar corporations. Lyft gave a $15 million donation to the ballot campaign to support this ballot question, the largest single donation in the history of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to a ballot campaign, and they're expected to give tens of millions more. There's a reason that these companies are spending tens of millions of dollars to put out ad campaigns to confuse people. And it's because at the back end, if these bills pass or this ballot question passes, they're going to save billions of dollars. And why are they going to save it? Because they're not going to be paying it to the people who are making them their profits. At the end of the day, this is a basic issue. of workers rights worker justice. And I think the point is also well made that these services are all over our streets and all over our communities and if they're not paying their workers well, and they're not paying federal income taxes and you know they don't have a yard or a taxi, you know they're not buying a taxi license or anything else they're paying what I can't remember a $1 fee or something like that. It's, I mean, ridiculous. So they're completely abusing our system and they're trying to abuse it further with this obscene spending to functionally confuse people and get them to vote against the interests of their neighbors. So I think it's incredibly important that this council speaks up and says that that model of business has no place in a community like Medford and in a Commonwealth like Massachusetts. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I got nothing.
[Zac Bears]: I couldn't find it either but I do. recall something coming across somewhere about, I don't know if it was the Eversource project but there was work to be done. I think in the parking lot, there was a MWR a MW okay okay. Right. Yes, that's it. I just add this to counsel's point, the Department of Public Utilities I mean it's another example of a public entity that's just completely unaccountable to the public. So, maybe if, if his. divine prophecy is true, Governor Healy will address that. They put the PU in the DPU, don't they? The PU and DPU, I like that, Councilor Newton.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I don't know if folks remember, but prior to in 2020, in summer of 2020, I had put a resolution on the agenda around putting up a banner on the front of city hall and went into a pretty extensive resolution, legal diatribe on the case law behind the government speech doctrine. And this was about putting up a Black Lives Matter banner on city hall. And at the time the district court had ruled that the city of Boston, basically the Supreme court has overruled the court of appeals and the district court since then. But what's very clear from the case is that of what existed and was true in 2020 is true now. which is that as long as the city has a policy or I may say an ordinance that clearly defines how, you know, government entities, the city council or the mayor can use government buildings or flagpoles or places of displaying any sort of banner or message. As long as there's a clear policy as to how that can be used then that is completely allowable. And I think it would, I agree with Councilor Tseng what we ran into and in 2020 was that we didn't have a policy. It was really nilly, and I believe in 2020, we passed a resolution and asked what the policy was. And I don't believe we ever received a response from the city administration on that. And I've had it on my list for a couple years now that maybe we should write an ordinance and if we're not going to have a policy that maybe we have to take it in our hands to protect ourselves in the future so I'd love to get a response to this resolution and see if a policy has since been implemented. I don't think it's behooves the city to have a policy that any private entity can put up any message they want on a public building I think that's incredibly dangerous. I certainly don't think that having a very clear policy about the government itself putting up messages should be an issue. And I certainly don't think the excuse should be made, as the excuse was made by the Bayroll administration in 2020, that if we put one thing up, we have to put anything up. Well, no, if the government wants to put something up, they can put up what they want. And the Supreme Court just made it very clear that as long as we have a clear policy, we don't have to let anyone put up whatever they want. I'm going to thank the Supreme Court, which I very rarely do with the Supreme Court, for making it very clear what our legal standing is when it comes to government speech in public buildings. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'm Councilor bears mentioned possibly wanting to add in an ordinance was that a amendment to this, which I'd be happy to support but just that if we don't receive a response I think it would be a prompt response that clearly states that we will have an administrative policy, then to protect the city would probably be in the responsibility of this council to take our own action, so no amendment just great kind of a path forward. Yeah, I just want, I just wanted to clarify.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tsengford for this forward. You know, this council has fought very hard for the 325 and 326 and 710. I was actually slightly glad to see that the new 100 route in here would include a lot of the previous 710, except for the part in the heights, which is of course one of the most important. It's still the heights you have to walk to one side or the other to get transit access. I will say that I think the, proposed T 96 and T 101 with 15 minutes service is a great addition to the community, especially the T 96 connecting the red, orange and green lines with service every 15 minutes, but I do completely agree that there are some major gaps in here that need to be addressed. I very much doubt we're going to get the express bus service back I know that nobody wants to hear that, but there. If you look at this redesign it eliminated it everywhere. It's not just Medford it's all the express buses are gone. And that has been an initiative of the Baker administration to privatize or otherwise eliminate express bus service, which we have seen impact our community. I think it makes a lot of sense for this council to serve. I, I hear you on the climate transportation subcommittee. If you're amenable I think a committee of the whole might be a better venue. There's a lot of residents clamoring for for a voice in this. way that this was rolled out, there is kind of a specific PDF for Medford. It's talking about impacts specific to Medford. So I think we could host a committee of the whole, have residents issue their opinions, have Councilors issue theirs, and then submit that as a public comment as you intended to the MBTA. So if you wouldn't mind amending that to committee of the whole, and I would also just add for the benefit of the public, in addition to the in-person, Comments sessions, there's a virtual public meeting Wednesday, June 8 at 6pm for the mystic river and North Shore region for the bus network redesign so that should be focusing a little bit more on on our area as well. And I know that there's a lot of residents who are concerned and some residents who are happy, and I'm hoping that we can keep the good and maybe ameliorate some of the bad as we work through this process with the T. I think they're not gonna start changing routes until next year, and this whole process does go through 2028. So I am, while skeptical based on past experience, I am slightly hopeful that the extended timeframe means that some adaptation and adjustment may be possible. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I realize this now. Could we, well, I don't know, I don't know what to do about this, but I think maybe we should actually have Mr. Blake down along with Mr. McGivern and Mr. Wartella whenever source comes. I know we've already passed that. So maybe I'll throw it on as a V paper to this one to invite Todd Blake as well to request that Todd Blake join us, because maybe he could give us an update on all of the painting and whether or not it was temporary or permanent or whatever. So B paper to invite Todd Blake to come down to discuss the Eversource project.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: In terms of the in-person audience, it is currently zero, Mr. Castagnetti.
[Zac Bears]: Affordable Housing Trust.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I'd move to join this with Councilor Tseng's motion 22-352.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Councilor Tseng as well. I'm glad that we had the same thought on this one. As folks know, this is Haitian Heritage Month and Haitian Flag Day is on Wednesday. I do know there was a ceremony at the Andrews School over the weekend, which I think is fantastic as well. And I just think it's a great chance for us to recognize and honor our Haitian American community here in Medford. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Madam President. So, I think as this council as well where, as many Councilors here have put forward resolutions regarding the DCR and the state of the properties in our community. that there's a lot of work that we really need DCR to step up on in terms of keeping their ways and properties clean, making sure that their construction projects are communicated with the city and that they're making the improvements that we want to see as a community, and that we also have, you know, clean and safe and fair access to all of the parks and those great benefits that we have from DCR managed properties as well. And I think, as this council knows the responses to us have been either slow or non existent, and the same is true of the city staff the mayor as well. You know, and I think, given the advocacy of this council and the municipality as well a number of resident organizations, Walk Medford, the newly formed Route 16 coalition, which is looking at the entire stretch of Route 16 and trying to improve that, as well as I think what likely will form between Medford and Malden, some work around the Fellsway and improvements on that property. I think it's time that we invite the new commissioner of DCR down here to meet with us, to hear our concerns directly, to meet with city staff and build stronger lines of communication so we can get those prompt and speedy responses to our requests, as well as having a clear And, you know, advanced notice when DCR is going to come in and impact our community, and I think this is a way to do it. I was meeting with Senator Jalen and we kind of discussed this and she thought it would be good for the council to originate this, I did speak with the mayor and she was in favor of this as well. So I'm sure that with this council's support that all of us can work together to get the DCR folks down here to make a real impact and try to make a real change in the relationship between the city of Medford and DCR. So I asked for my colleagues support and I hope that this effort can try to jumpstart the work that we've already been doing around this issue.
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President. Motion to take paper 22339 off the table.
[Zac Bears]: For the panels that are disturbed, are they just going to be replaced with concrete? And this is a little out of scope, so I understand if we can't insert right now, but it was something I was thinking of last week when we were taking a look at this. Is there any long-term plan by National Grid, and I know Verizon co-owns these poles as well, for moving services underground, or is that not really on the radar?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I was talking to Commissioner McGibbon the other day, and made the faux pas that I thought he'd been around for like a decade because of how much work he's done in the last three or four years. So you have big shoes to fill, but I'm just mentioning that to somebody else. I'm confident that you will. But just to follow up on actually one of Councilor Scarpelli's questions, one of the things we were talking about last month was trying to get this out a little early, you know, get the first reading done in April so we could try to get bids and procurement out. Has that happened or are we waiting for this third reading to start the procurement process?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Great. Thank you. And thank you both. No, you're fine. So that leads into my next question. Obviously going to support this. I think it's good. I think whatever work we can do to try to at least stay afloat, right? Not keep things from getting worse. That's sometimes maybe the best we can do with the limited conditions that we have right now. But as I recall, we had, and I'm just trying to remember the numbers in my head, you probably have them in yours, the $100 million backlog, that was streets and sidewalks together, correct?
[Zac Bears]: Right, okay, thank you. That's 31 numbers what I was looking for.
[Zac Bears]: You said the 2.5 million a year, that's what we're kind of trying to piece together. This was going to be 500,000, you know, just doing the math in my head, how long is it going to take us at current investment levels to get to a state of good repair?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Thank you for the honesty and the directness. know, again, you've heard me make this point a million times before and I'm just going to make it again for the sake of making it. People are getting hurt on the sidewalks. We know that there's a sidewalk problem, we know the reason of decades of disinvestment in sidewalks, we know how important it is to have good high quality sidewalks and streets for people to be safe for all modes of transportation for all of the issues with collisions and crashes and injuries that happen on streets and sidewalks. Nevermind that we are also probably have liability exposure on things like that, as we know from some of the cases that have come against the city. And I really do think it's imperative. And this obviously is not in your purview, but I'm just saying it anyway. That, you know, this council and the city administration come up with a plan to significantly invest in the backlogs of capital needs this community has, I think this community is ready for it I hear people asking for it I hear people. from all across the political spectrum all the time saying what's wrong with our roads what's wrong with our sidewalks what's wrong with our high school why don't we have a fire headquarters. And I think that if we all came together across, you know, different political beliefs different different, you know, voting groups that we could come up with a package and a plan that the people of this community would support to address those long term needs and get us on a good footing. where we can actually start to think about the go forward basis and keeping things in good repair, not thinking about how long it's gonna take us just to get there. So again, I'm gonna support this tonight, but I think it's pretty clear that we have a lot more investment and a lot more work to do in the long run. And I'm gonna keep making that point from this seat. And I hope that all of our colleagues in city government will come together and help us with that. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'll defer to Councilor Knight, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: That's an helpful outline of it. Just two follow up questions. There's 33% of the streets, but do we know what a percent of the mileage are private ways?
[Zac Bears]: A little less than three. And what's our total?
[Zac Bears]: So that 33% is actually close to a mileage. It's not just the number of streets, it's actually the mileage of ways.
[Zac Bears]: That's fine. That'd be great. Yeah, because that's just, you know, I'm trying to find, you know, you have the number of streets, but some of the streets are this long and some of them are this long versus the mileage. Yeah, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: That's fine.
[Zac Bears]: No, we'll get the right answer. And then my second question is kind of a similar one. When we talk about the 200 locations, do you have that measured out? And I understand maybe they haven't entirely all been selected yet, but could you give that number in linear feet or mileage? Or could you give that to us going forward?
[Zac Bears]: But yeah, in the month of the report, that would be great. I think it'd just be great to take the metric of a location, which is variable, and put it into a standardized metric that we can. We did half a mile of sidewalks this year. I don't know. That would be valuable to me.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Great, thanks. I will stop belaboring the point at this point.
[Zac Bears]: I'd just like to make sure that that's for third reading.
[Zac Bears]: If we are going to do that, I do have a question on 22-318. And I do think they need to be separate roll calls for third reading. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Thank you, Madam President. when we, this is presented in April, Chief of Staff Nazarian said that this would address 95% of the stumps in the city. And also, you know, we've had some kind of ongoing issues with the stump dump. And the chief of staff said that none of these stumps would end up in the stump dump. And I'm just wanna make sure from you folks that both of those facts are still true. Yeah, so the contractors are moving them they're not going into the stuff. But on the 95% question is that is that wrote, is it going to address 95% of the stumps that are currently in the city.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, great.
[Zac Bears]: I guess what would be helpful then, if possible, if there's a total number of stumps in the city and how many may be removed by this project, and you don't have to have it now, but if you could just send that over.
[Zac Bears]: Great, yeah, and that would be really helpful. People talk about it a lot.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to take papers 20-078 and 20-573 for third reading. On the motion, Vice President Bears to take 20-078 and 20-573 off the table for third reading, seconded by Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Actually, I have no discussion on the particulars of the petition. I would just ask the clerk to coordinate with, I would guess the building department, or maybe this is all in the clerk's office, just to make sure that our legal notices have the updated sections and language for the new zoning ordinance going forward. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: It was smart that you did not. And I respect that.
[Zac Bears]: I certainly don't have any any problem with the project I just don't want to, I just don't want to vote on it without having the paperwork reviewed. So, sorry about that Barry, we just like there's a little snafu with us getting the right paperwork to review. but I'll defer to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: It's right there.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, you need a special permit from 11 to 1.
[Zac Bears]: I have a motion for a 10-minute recess.
[Zac Bears]: It's less. I guess.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I would just add specifically those that you can stay up until 11pm right now and then 11pm to 1am would be what the special permit would require. So, I already seconded it. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I would just add to the point of Councilor Collins, you know, 60 to 70% of residents don't vote in the municipal elections. And, you know, I think having the perspective of someone who, you know, from the records that we got has moved around quite a bit, but has now decided to, as far as I can tell, purchase and settle here, submit an application, requesting to be on boards and commissions, you know, now planting those roots now, someone who wants to be more involved, that that perspective could aid the elections department. in that outreach and in that work to raise turnout in our local elections. So I think that perspective would be valued and I would move to approve.
[Zac Bears]: I just think by the logic that was just outlined, 65% of the city is excluded from being on the, you know, that 35% of the city should get priority to be on boards and commissions and 65% should be second fiddle. And I don't think that's a fair logic. And I understand, I understand it. I understand the position. You know, we want people who voted in every election. We want people who have gone above and beyond, you know, voting in every election. And that's one perspective. Most people don't do that in this city. And I think we have to question why. And I think that having someone with the perspective who understands the answer to the question why could help us change that reality that we've had for a very long time, even in the most contentious elections in the past few years, 34%. That's better than 25% or 20%, which we were getting 10 years ago. Sure. But again, we didn't receive the voting histories for any other appointments we made here. I'm just going to leave it and to Councilor Knight's point about being properly educated as to the process of applying, you know, being an applicant to a board or commission and working with confirmation of the council. I think we're well aware. I haven't, I didn't receive a call from, I haven't received a call, I don't think in two years, except for maybe one exception from a mayoral appointee who needed to be confirmed by this council. And is that the fault of the applicant or a fault of the appointing authority? I'll leave it at that. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Well, we're under suspension, Madam President, motion to take 22-349 and 22-350.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanna say thank you to Councilor Tseng for putting this forward. I think we all know, well, number one, A, I technically count as a young person by this definition, so I appreciate that. But I think we all know people who are in our community here in Medford, young people who have lost their life too early. because of mental health crisis or substance use disorder stemming from mental health crisis. I think one of the It's just, it's really tough. I have someone I know very closely who just entered a 30 day program, young person, successful college graduate, still just really struggling through these issues. And I think it's just essential that we do everything we can. I think the great work of our prevention and outreach team and in partnership with so many city departments and folks has done a lot of work, especially relative to the substance use, piece of this. But as has been noted, COVID and economic crises and whatever else it may be really have exacerbated general mental health issues for young people. And whatever we can do as a city, as a mayoral administration, city council, Medford public schools, and just a community in general and all of the private agencies and Organizations like the universities, whatever we can come together and do to keep people safe, to keep people in, make sure people can access the care that they need and deserve is something we should do. So I strongly support the efforts of this council, Councilor Tseng, and our city to look out for one another when it comes to this. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President motion to revert to the regular order of business.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. This was a meeting regarding the beautification ordinance. We made a number of changes proposed beautification ordinance, we made a number of changes, it would create a beautification committee to focus on curb appeal around the city. We made a bunch of changes and then we reported it out to committee of the whole for further discussion, move to approve the report on the motion of our system bears to approve seconded by Councilor carby Oh, Mr.
[Zac Bears]: Please go ahead. Point of information. That is actually not an amendment. That is what the current rule said, including the rules that you operated under for many years as a Councilor. So that section has not been changed at all. The emergency meeting section has no amendments.
[Zac Bears]: The phrase at the beginning that you referenced about January is also how the current rules read. There's a bunch, this is an amendment to the existing rule two meetings. Most of the content in this rules amendment is the current rules of the Medford City Council. It is not all brand new. It is not all from, you know, come down from man on high, you know, the socialist demon. It is literally an amendment to the existing rules of the council rules, which you as a Councilor operated under for many years. You've cited two items that are not changing. It says that that first sentence in the current rule says tell me every Tuesday, starting on the first Tuesday in January. And now it says every two weeks, starting on the first Tuesday in January.
[Zac Bears]: So on September 1st, 2022. I'm not gonna disagree.
[Zac Bears]: You certainly would not want the facts to dispute your opinion, and I understand that, and I will let you continue to speak. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to say since I didn't speak before public comment. Number one, thank you, Madam President, for your gracious administration allowing members of the public to speak beyond the, the way that the rules are are outlined. I think that when possible that's a good thing. And we do it every time that we can. And I think that should be noted. I think former councilor Penta got it exactly right. We were elected to represent the people the best way we think possible. And right now, it seems to me that the majority of us think that this is the best way possible to serve the residents. And that's why we're doing this. And I think we will see what the product is. And I said it last time and I said this time, all we can do is try. If we succeed, we succeed. And if we fail, we need to own up to it. And that's, I believe, what accountability looks like. And as I said, last meeting we discussed this, I'll be the first person to hold myself accountable if this doesn't go the way that we expect it to go. So thank you for your leadership of this meeting and of this council. Thank you to my colleagues for your discussion. I understand we agree to disagree on this and we shall see what happens. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, I found the records in order and I move approval. Second.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve the report.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, this was on the beautification ordinance, proposed beautification ordinance. We reviewed it with council last week. We just met prior to this meeting and reported out a number of amendments and reported the paper out to committee of the whole, as well as for review by council. And I would move to approve the report.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, point of information. Thank you, Madam President, I just wanted to, I'm sure you may be already aware, but this would fall under the new procedure for public hearings by the rules. And I can just happy to voice that for the community since this is the first time we're using it if that's acceptable. So, now as you just did the petition is right into the record. The second step is that the petitioner will provide an explanation on the matter. then we will open the public hearing for in favor and opposed. And then following the public hearing, we would implement a six day public comment period. The council can also, shall neither approve or deny the hearing until the conclusion of that period, but may waive that by majority vote of the council. So that is the new rules just for the edification of the public. And I will note that we did have a committee of the whole on this previously. So it has been before us. This is not the first time we're seeing it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I would like to also add that same day we also reviewed some requests for improvements. at the Auburn, Codding, North and West Street intersection. I know that didn't end up going to the traffic commission, but now it's sitting there on the table in the traffic commission. So I'm, you know, it's just, we did both of those things the same day. We haven't seen the action on them. I would just request, make a motion or an amendment that we, the city clerk forward the committee report from those meetings to the DPW commissioner as we now, it was a different commissioner at the time. I would just want to make sure that he has the information from that meeting in front of him.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I can just add that I know thanks to the advocacy of this council, that there was a $500,000 earmark included for this project in the ARPA bill passed by the state legislature. I believe the intent of that was to kind of unlock additional bond money as well in the transportation bond bill. So I just wanna put that out there and then hopefully as part of the update, just get an update on the financing piece of it, because it seems like money is now out there. So. I hope that they can get going on it very quickly.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, I would just note that there are a number of reports that we've requested from the administration that did have due dates in April of 2022, five-year plan on gas leaks, 90-day report on connecting classroom learning to career applications, as well as presentations on finances and warrant articles. So I just wanted to note that for the record. And I would move to adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: While I was hoping to go through the new agenda format I will vote yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Motion to take paper 22-336 under suspension. So moved. Seconded by Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I was gonna say if we could maybe hear from Sandy Gale, but, you know, I didn't know Mr. Nardella. I didn't, you know, I... At least, I'm saying at least there was a resume, you know, there was... Was there?
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, my president. Just, I would certainly support creating a more thorough system for how we approve appointments from the administration. I just wouldn't feel comfortable treating this applicant differently than we've treated the applicants in the last week. So just having a committee of the whole, I think that would mean we did three at once and then one separately. I know that's no longer on the table, but I just wanted to put that out there. I think we have to treat everyone the same. I'm fine with tabling for one week. So I won't debate that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. First off, thank you for reading my run-on sentence. Yeah, it was a long one. I didn't quite realize how long that sentence got. Kevin, it looks like you have a presentation or a box of some kind. So I'm really excited about that. I brought props just in case. On the first piece, I have heard that that has been addressed, which is great. But it definitely interested in the props. Second one I think this resolution was filed when Patrick was still here so it may not have come to you. So certainly not trying to put you on the spot by any means, but we had this council had requested I had put forward a resolution last year requesting that this room, the Room 207 Council Office, Room 201 Richley Room, and the conference room at the high school get a kind of a tech upgrade using ARPA funds to make sure that we can have some solid video conferencing. So that's just what that's referencing. I'm excited to hear from you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I can only imagine what Kevin would do with $100,000 right would have a bar room full of boxes. My two questions are, one, so for these two solutions, the 201 and 207, all we would need in order to go broadcast would be to have MCM in the Zoom room with us, right? That's correct. Okay. Yep. So we can live broadcast. If MCM's in there, we could set up the recording and it'd be through MCM and through Zoom. So we could have a double backup, it sounds like. So that sounds great. Yep. About the other two spaces, it sounds like maybe the conference room at Medford High School that that might take, that might not have any infrastructure. Have you been able to take a look at that at all?
[Zac Bears]: I don't honestly I don't know the intent and I don't want to necessarily step on the toes of the school committee but I do know that they had used the superintendent's conference room for committees of the whole on occasion so I just didn't want to leave them out of the resolution has that had been a room but You're in the building with you're in Medford high all often so that would be the folks to check with the superintendent believe it's a superintendents conference room. Or maybe a room next door to that and then just in terms of this room, I know we have a solution that works right now. My understanding was that this was kind of a jury-rigged solution that we came up with pretty quickly in 2020. It has generally worked, but we have seen some issues with it. I remember Mr. Gordon talking about some kind of box that we were looking to get for this room, I think, that would have better integrated some of the systems. I'm not an expert either. So just, do you have any updates on this space and maybe
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Kevin. I think that's pretty much the intent that I have would be to, make this create a permanent option in this room a permanent infrastructure that, you know, maybe it's a little easier to train someone on a little easier for someone to hop in if someone's out out sick or you know, and something that's long term sustainable I think that's really really essential and I mentioned the ARPA funds because I do think this really falls very clearly under, you know, response to the pandemic in that situation and it seems to me to be valid. I do believe an RFP bidding process would go through the procurement office and it would be technically under the mayor. Everything really is under the mayor at the end of the day and under our plan of government. So that, but this is our, certainly our request would be a permanent technological solution for this space that's more adaptive, streamlined and will last for a long time.
[Zac Bears]: And something you may not know, there is a, there is a screen up there too.
[Zac Bears]: All right, thank you very much. Thank you, Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: It's something like, I don't know why I have the URL, but it's like IQ M two. It's a system that other cities use. It seems to be like a municipal service that's focused on cities. It sounds to me, honestly, a little bit like it's kind of designed to flee cities a little bit.
[Zac Bears]: The websites in other cities, it's like you have to go to this specific website to access recordings and it does look like Windows 98. Yeah, I can't remember, it may be related to, is it related to the MuniCode service? So maybe through this, it may be related to this Granicus service as well. I've been looking at those contracts, they're kind of wild, but I didn't, I don't know if I have the video one, so.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, I mean, I'm right there with you on all of this. I think we could basically say, please look at every DCR property in the city of Medford and fix it. And then that's just the beautification type things we're experiencing right now, with very little warning on Fells Way West that they're redoing all of the sidewalk from Mystic Valley Parkway at Wellington Circle all the way up to Fulton Street at route 28. We got that notice like a week before they started the project. You know, now we have people having a hard time again. They've just dug up the new safe routes to school project on Fells Way West, and they're refilling the sidewalks. I mean, it's just a mess. Anyone who lives over there, they're leaving it for weeks. It's hard to cross the street on a street that's already dangerous to cross. I mean, I certainly support improvements and all of that, but it's just not happening in a responsible way and in a responsibly communicated way. And at the same time, you know, in addition to the construction materials that have been left, you know, we have some sections of Fellsway West that are similar to like Hastings Woods, where you have just woods right on the, you know, on the north side of Fellsway West. That's pretty nasty all the time too. And then everything around Roosevelt Circle, which is right where I live, is really just gross. So, you know, I'm not adding an amendment. I'm not anything substantive.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I do know that there is a DCR coalition. There's a report, you know, we did have, remember the Foundation Budget Review Commission report about K-12 school funding? They just did a similar report around DCR funding that says it's drastically underfunded and the state needs to step up. There are people who are advocating around that. So I do want to give a shout out to everyone in the community who has been trying to get the state to step up and get DC artists step up but it's really abysmal so thank you for putting this forward.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: I want to agree with Councilor Caraviello but I also want to say that, certainly while I respect and enjoy King is coverage. I think that the truest shame and I hope we would all agree is that. The for profit market has decided that this beat doesn't matter. And I think it really does the local government beat is incredibly important. I for one have gone back through the microfilm archives that this city has of our transcript and the former daily mercury and. you know, when we had a 20-30 page daily paper in this community, it was just amazing the things that you can see and you can find. And now, you know, God forbid for all of us now we're going to be, you know, confined to trying to find something on a Facebook archive that doesn't exist from a company that doesn't care about us at all, just to find out what happened in the community. This week, you know, and that goes from everything big to small from city budget and taxes and you know, the great dramas that I've read from the 50s and 60s of our city government, right down to, you know, who won the ballgame and when is the sign up for the local, you know, arts festival or whatever it may be. And I do want to thank everyone who does their best to get that information out there in the ways that we have now. But I think it's a big loss to not have a paper dedicated to covering this community. And I think We all know that the stories here are rich and vibrant and sometimes contentious, and that we will be at a great loss to not have that. So thank you, Councilor Caraviello, thank you. Thank you, Kinga, and thank you to everybody who came before you who reported on this community. And I hope someday soon we'll be able to say that there are reporters back here talking about the city of Minford. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Madam President Thank you Madam Superintendent for being here. I think everyone, really everyone in the community is aware of the condition of our high school. It's probably one of the public buildings that people visit the most in our city. And having attended the school relatively recently, I can attest to some of the statements made in here. I think, you know, this is, it's essential for us as a city to show a unified front, to move through the process and make sure that the MSBA understands that we really are serious about this and it's something that we want to address. So I'm hopeful tonight that we can move this forward, get our statement of interest in and make sure that this process really gets off to the start that it needs to get off to. So I'll certainly be voting for it tonight. I would also say, you know, I think we know that this community has a lot of capital needs across the board. We're not talking about how we're going to address all of those tonight. You know, this is just a statement of interest to go to the MSBA, get a proposal in front of them. start thinking about how much money that might cost. But I certainly think that this project and a number of other projects are due immediate consideration by the city and I'm hopeful that we can fund all of them promptly. So thank you again for bringing this forward and I support it.
[Zac Bears]: Just an aside, Councilor Tseng reminded me of, and I think this is important for everyone to realize, you know, sweating through an AP physics test in lecture hall two or the MCAS or, you know, SATs, PSATs. I mean, these are, there's documented studies about the impact of the environment on student outcomes directly. You know, if you can't sit through a test, that's gonna make it hard for you to take the test. So just another reason to be supportive of this. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to waive the reading.
[Zac Bears]: I would motion to approve.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to waive the reading.
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve. Second.
[Zac Bears]: Motion over to the regular order of business.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Whereas this is an ordinance, I think it's important that it be fully read. So I really appreciate you doing so. We've talked about this a lot. We recently had a committee of the whole on this matter. but essentially we're modernizing the snow and ice removal ordinance for the city of Medford. We worked with all of the relevant departments with our DPW, code enforcement, the legal department, as well as many residents, groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, Walk Medford, to really get to both best practices and making sure that the ordinance reflects the practices that the city You know thanks will will maximize the clearance of snow and ice from our sidewalks to make sure that there's access for all people throughout throughout the year. So so that that's where we got to hear the next item on our agenda is a set of policy recommendations which were outside the scope of the ordinance but that the subcommittee. you know, felt was important that we send to the mayor and the relevant city departments. So that will be the next item. But I just want to thank Councilor Marks, Councilor Falco, Councilor Caraviello, Councilor Tseng, Councilor Sparpelli, who have all been on this subcommittee at some point in the past three years, as we move this forward, as well as all the other folks that I mentioned, everyone who came to our meetings, Commissioner Moki, and our code enforcement staff, Commissioner Karens and Commissioner McGivern at DPW, as well as staff over there, Solicitor Scanlon, who's guided us through this process as well. We did receive a letter today from Steven Pompeo, who I think was not able to make the committee of the whole, but did have a couple of suggestions. I'd like to propose that we accept a couple of those. So I do have two small amendments to make here. In the last paragraph of the new section A, instead of six daylight hours, changed the word six to the word eight, so eight daylight hours. That came up as essentially the idea is to make sure that if snow stops falling and someone's gone to work, that they can get home and have enough time to clear it. And the second change is in the second to last paragraph of section C, which would be Upon a third currently reads upon third violation during the term of ownership of the property. I would just propose the amendment that we change the term of the ownership of the property to the phrase a five year period, so that people do have some sort of respite if you own a property for 70 years and you violated this three times. You know, I think you should have a second chance. So those would be the two amendments. I have forwarded that language to the city clerk as well for his records, but those are my proposed minutes I was second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President and Councilor Caraviello, I completely agree with you. I think so much of what we can do to improve the conditions around the city or around our civil code. I do wanna say that specifically as pertains to this, one of the recommendations, A, we added that the code enforcement office could choose their designee. And we worked with them on the enforcement side of this very specifically to do the best practices that they felt were being effective. Obviously, we need a lot more capacity in that office. I totally agree with that. One thing that we were able to get to is that potential, and I think the DPW and the building department have have agreed to this together at least they didn't are meeting that DPW would be able to be designees, as per this ordinance so that when they're out plowing if they see someone pushing stuff right back out into the street, they can go right after that. So it's not a solution to the question you asked I completely agree but it is, but I get.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I completely agree. I think we think so much of what people bring to the city when it comes to needs is around the civil code and the distribution of the people who can actually are out there enforcing that is off balance. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Mr. de Antonio, thank you. Councilor Tseng, and this the next paper which I'll go over does go through some, you know this, what we just discussed was the ordinance within our authority the next, the next paper is a number of recommendations that we're making to the city regarding storm mobile, you know that we, we don't control dpw, we don't control the list of programs that Councilor carabiello suggested but we do recommend a priority sidewalk program, bring more bombardiers in, clear more sidewalks, more community engagement, expansion of a paid shoveler program, the request that the mayor create some exemptions for certain persons, people with disabilities or elderly residents. So a number of those questions are things that we have discussed extensively in subcommittee and that we are really pushing the administration to take under serious consideration.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. As I said, these are the recommendations of policy recommendations to the city administration regarding snow removal. First one is on plowing and snow removal practices, recommending an improvement to plowing practices to avoid the dumping of snow and ice on sidewalks and corner crosswalks. Second is discretion for the code enforcement officer. A lot of this does fall under administrative discretion. The third one is basically that it's essential that even if there's discretion sidewalks do need to be cleared. So recommending a creation of a policy to ensure that a sidewalk corner or crosswalk that's encumbered by snow or ice due to plowing or snow moving is promptly cleared as quickly as possible. Second recommendation is on a priority sidewalk snow removal program we had extensive discussions in 2020 and 2021 on this including the creation of a list of priority streets that could be cleared. We believe that this would really be incredibly helpful for connectivity. We do know that cost is a barrier but we think that given the city's a snow and ice account that, you know, this should be a serious priority for the administration to implement a priority sidewalk snow removal program. The third recommendation is on community engagement. First, recommending clear and consistent snow removal information be distributed using all communications tools available to the city. Second, a single municipal point person or tool, for example, code enforcement or see quick fix. I do know that code enforcement is now using see quick fix as kind of a database, but where residents can make reports or request assistance. The administration has expanded some efforts regarding the volunteer and paid shovelers, but I think as Councilor Caraviello noted, that could be significantly expanded and we request that. Fourth is regarding exemptions, noting that some communities have created exemption lists for certain people. We suggest that the administration explore this policy, and also that if they were to implement exemptions that they have a policy to make sure that those sidewalks are still able to be cleared whether that be You know what Councilor Caraviello was discussing or something else. And finally, enforcement coordination between DPW and code enforcement. We did have a discussion on March 23 2022 that coordination is essential to making sure that if snow is being pushed back out into the street after a street has been cleared. that the DPW can take a look at that. The building commissioner and DPW commissioner discussed making members of the DPW designees for the purposes of enforcement of this normal ordinance, and we support these coordination efforts. And I would move to approve this item and send it to the city administration.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, motion to waive the reading for a summary?
[Zac Bears]: This is an item that we worked on for several months at this point, coming out of the Ordinances and Rules Subcommittee. This, basically, I'll try to summarize it as best as I can. Obviously, it's essentially a review of the existing council rules, the creation of a table of contents and pursuant sections of the rules. And I'll just say this off the top. These are the consensus items that we all agreed on and committee of the whole, we have separated out a discussion of the city council's meetings for further review so that will happen in the future. This vote and these change will not affect the current meeting schedule of the city council. What it does do, as I said, first it adds a table of contents to the council rules which had not existed previously. There are a number of technical language change and updates. Previously this set of the council rules, you know, had different names for Councilors versus members. So just making sure that all of that is consistent. And, you know, a number of other just updates and kind of bringing the language into modern readable times, some of it was a little archaic and arcane, maybe pulled directly from Robert's rules or from some other parliamentary procedures and it's kind of hard to understand or parse. Third thing, third major thing is a streamlines the order of business, it takes a lot of the items that we all have consensus on congratulations, condolences, announcements, informational items, and kind of puts them in a single section for us to take a look at up front. Fourth is there actually was no council rule or anything discussing public participation, it was one sentence and another rule. This creates a council rule on public participation, organizing that and making it clear what people, you know, exactly the rules are but I think, as we all discussed maintaining the intent of this council that the public can come and speak to us on any issue that they wish to speak to us on. Five is that it changes the public hearing process as people who have been before this council know we asked members of the public to tell us whether they support or oppose a project before we explain the project. So, this would change that process and make that more clear. Six major changes, just requesting additional information and time for considerations of papers that are put before us by the mayor, particularly on financial matters, as well as requesting, you know, a written report of, you know, a written version of whatever updates or requests we're getting from the council in addition to maybe a verbal presentation. And then seventh, there's, I think the last major change is just that the president would review the agenda with the clerk prior to the posting of the agenda. If there's anything I missed, I'd certainly be happy to hear from my fellow Councilors.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to, so tonight we wouldn't change the meetings. So I just want to make that clear for everybody. This vote tonight, we're talking about the meetings in the future committee, the whole, those changes are not included in what we're updating tonight. So I'm certainly willing to have, have that further debate. And I know that there's, you know, I think a lot of options that we could potentially entertain, but tonight's vote would not change the meeting schedule.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, just on this, do we have an estimate of how many sidewalks may be repaired or how many projects may be funded with this? And also just what the terms of the bonds are going to be, is it going to be 30 years or something else?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Just wondering if, Any of these funds are going to be used in concert with other funding, or is it so you put this is basically we're taking out this loan order for the sidewalks. For example, may that occur concurrently with the street repair fund of the chapter 90 funds or is it all just kind of separated out.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Given the way the process works, I personally would not be opposed to approving this for a first reading tonight. We would not end up in final approval as noted for several weeks. That would allow us to get the shot clock moving on the process while still being able to discuss the further questions and concerns of the council. That would just be my suggestion here, but certainly willing to hear what other councilors think.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And I think, you know, I've said it before and I'll say it again, but we do have this multi hundred, you know, a hundred million dollar plus backlog on roads and sidewalk repair. And I'm not trying to tie this specific request to that necessarily, but you know, this is 1 million versus a hundred million in total need to a hundred million or more now probably. And I think it speaks to what Councilor Scarpelli was speaking about earlier when the schools came up is, you know, we have, hundreds of millions of dollars of capital need in this city across things that affect every single person in the city, schools, fire, roads, IT, To be honest, I think we could throw in the bathrooms at City Hall if anyone's come down here lately. You know, there's just a ton of capital need and and Councilors saying made a good point to, you know, when we do the small stuff, but we don't address the substantive foundational issue. you know, is that a good long-term strategy? I don't think so. And I don't, I don't think that's the long, you know, I hear when you're talking about the long-term strategy, Madam Chief of Staff of this administration, I think it sounds like we're moving in a different direction from where we've been in the past, you know, several decades of kind of taking it off a small piece at a time. So while I'm encouraged by some of the rhetoric, I think, you know, I think this whole city could really get behind a comprehensive plan to address our capital needs in the numbers that we're really talking about in the numbers of, of those large, you know, hundred million plus for roads, a hundred million plus for schools, probably more than that, you know, tens of millions for the fire stations at least. And I think if we could bring everyone together around a comprehensive way to fund that, that would move us in a great direction to solving problems that we hear about from everybody who lives in the city that we heard about tonight when we're talking about snow shoveling, when you can't get down the sidewalk because it's cracked and broken, you know, So I just think that's the direction we should be moving in sooner rather than later. And I hope that all of the bodies of city government, ourselves, the school committee, and the mayor can be on the same page as we move forward. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I guess two questions. One is going to be the same question as before. And I understand if you don't have the answer right in front of you, but do you have an estimate on how many stumps this loan order may be able to remove across the city? And then secondly, I know I was able to work with Senator Jalen and Representative Barbara Donato-Angarpoli to get an earmark for the city for ARPA money for $100,000 for tree planting and stump removal? Is this going to be used in concert with those funds?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much. That's exciting and I hope we can get it done. We, this is from the state, the state's first ARPA bill so it's not the federal allocates separate from the 50 million that we're getting as a city. The ARPA bill from last last year that the state house passed 100. It was $100,000 for tree planting and stump removal was was one of the earmarks we were able to, to achieve. That's for planting and removal. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: One more, if you don't mind, Madam President. Just what's the expected timeline? Is this like this year and next year or?
[Zac Bears]: One final question. Will the stumps be, after removed, will they be removed from the city? Like, will they be chipped up and ground? I know that we've had some ongoing issues at the Brooks Estate and the Oak Grove Cemetery with the stump dump. The stump dump is full as far as I'm aware. So do you know if they're gonna be, basically, are we gonna, are these going to the stump dump or are they leaving the city?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to accept.
[Zac Bears]: Just on that point, the online stream is also working. So online and Verizon are working. There's something wrong with the box, Comcast box, basically. They're trying to fix it now.
[Zac Bears]: Soon to be regular Councilor bears. Just in terms of the reports due, I did receive information from Director O'Connor and Commissioner Moki regarding several items that we had requested information about that are currently on our reports due and deadlines. For 20-085, the 90-day review on the 360 health and fitness, there were no complaints. For 20-562 and 20-563, the signs on the XSS hotels, there were no complaints. For 20-586, the Fellsway Dunkin' Donuts, there was one complaint regarding masking over a year ago. Director O'Connor did not feel that it would preclude us, you know, revoking their license. 20-639, Last Light Tattoo Studio, there were no complaints. And 21-363, the Herb Chambers BMW, Class 2 auto sales and class 4 auto repair, there were no complaints. So I would move to place papers 20-085, 20-562, 20-563, 20-586, 20-639, and 21-363 on file.
[Zac Bears]: I would just remind residents that they will have the opportunity to speak on agenda items after this as well. But this is the opportunity that if an item is not on the agenda to speak.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. The fair share amendment has been a major topic of conversation in Massachusetts for nearly a decade. I think too often it is used as an excuse for the state not to fund schools, fund colleges, and fund roads now because we'll do it when the fair share amendment happens. Luckily enough, we are here. The fair share amendment is on the ballot for the November 2022 election. This would raise funds for the state that would go towards public education, public colleges and universities and our transit and roads. I think all of us know how deeply needed these funds are for municipalities like Medford and the campaign to support this amendment when it's on the ballot in November is currently soliciting the support of city councils across the Commonwealth. I would like to add our voice to that chorus of city councils, and I would move approval on this resolution.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President, thank you. So, this would only apply to income over $1 million so any income you make under $1 million would not be subject to the time I understand that that wasn't my question. We said people would be taxed 4% of only be people's income over $1 million. And it's obviously subject to the appropriation by the state legislature, but generally, you know, one of the biggest expenditures in the state legislature is Chapter 70, which is the multi-billion dollar fund that diverts state aid to local schools. Chapter 90 is a similar program which diverts state funding to roads, bridges, municipalities. So increases in those amounts for Chapter 70 or Chapter 90 would come through the existing formula to the city of Medford. And additionally, they could, you know, earmark for specific projects. For example, the West Medford commuter rail upgrade station upgrades. That could be one thing. I mean, it obviously would be subject to the appropriation by the legislature. But the way the ballot question is written, the money has to be spent on public education, public higher education and transit and roads.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, that not at this point, but more.
[Zac Bears]: This is not in relation to the SSR or anything like that. No, I know it's not related but we are getting funds from those, those other places right, I believe, the city's allocation from ARPA was about $50 million in one time funds spread out over five years.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. This is a resolution requesting that we support statewide commission on the status of citizens of Haitian descent. Community leaders in Medford's Haitian community have reached out regarding this item, and the intent of this commission would be to look at a number of issues facing Haitian communities across the Commonwealth. We have one of the largest Haitian American communities in the whole country here in Massachusetts, and as many people know, there are a number of issues We've discussed previously this term that affect the Haitian community when it comes to immigration, federal, state policy, and this commission would be a voice for members of the Haitian community across the state to issue reports and request action by our state government. And I would move approval.
[Zac Bears]: While it may not be within the walls of Medford, it certainly will affect our city. And this item is about a project that's currently undergoing review, mostly in Arlington, but it will connect a piece of Medford, the bridge between the two rotaries on High Street Route 60. And there are a couple of different routes currently being explored, but it would connect essentially that area of the Mystic River to the Minuteman bikeway in Arlington. And there's a essentially if you go to the survey tiny url.com slash mystic to bikeway survey to you can look at a set of plans that are currently proposed it would, I think, personally as someone who has driven through these rotaries and then walked near these rotaries relatively frequently significantly improve traffic safety in that area for all modes of transportation. which is kind of why I put it on I think that's a great benefit for the city of Medford in and of itself, but it will also connect the mystic pathways to the Arlington Minuteman bikeway. So, I would love the city administration to let residents know that this project is happening I didn't hear about it from Medford I heard about it from. I think a different group I'd actually can't remember quite right now, but also that residents can fill out the survey. where they can review the plans and let their voice be heard. Again, the URL is tinyurl.com slash mystic to bikeway survey number two, the number and then the number two and I would move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Resolution is relatively self-explanatory, but essentially the land on the riverbank across from Whole Foods, part of it is owned by the city of Menford, part of it is owned by the city of Somerville. There's currently not a path or sidewalk on that side of the street, which means that people have to cross at the relatively dangerous intersection of Auburn and Route 16 across the Auburn Street Bridge. residents in the area said that they would really benefit from a connection on this side of the road. And I'd love to see if our city administration can reach out to partners in the city of Somerville. I've reached out to a couple of councillors in the city of Somerville who said that they would be interested. So I'm hopeful that we can build that partnership and make things a little safer and more accessible at that area. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: the crossing would actually be on the Medford-controlled section of Auburn, well, potentially on the Medford-controlled section of Auburn Street, and the land, that bank is owned by the city, it's not by DCR, so we may need to collaborate with them to connect it, but it's mostly out of their jurisdiction, which in this case, I think is a good thing.
[Zac Bears]: I'm happy to go first. And if my fellow councilors would like to sever the votes on the resolve and the further resolve, I'm more than happy to do it. You know, we've been talking about this issue for a while, since I've been on the council, since before I was on the council, of housing, the housing crisis and the issues facing a lot of longtime residents of our community. We had some really good work in subcommittee last term, addressing emergency issues around the COVID pandemic. And I think we did a lot of good work on that as a council. coming out of the pandemic or into the latest phase or however we want to countenance it, the housing situation is deteriorating rapidly. We just had residents in here for the past couple of weeks who are facing displacement from units that they've lived in for decades. And the intent seems to be on that, that these long-term residents are being forced out. you know, just so that we can do a quick renovation and then raise the rents by a certain amount and then bring in a new type of person. The intent here is that the housing subcommittee look at a variety of options as we discussed last week you know the city's authority here is significantly limited by state law. So on a number of items on all of these items discussed we would have to file a home real petition and request action from the state for the city to do anything. I listed these these different policy items I personally support all of them I understand that if the council may support some of them and not others so I think we want to have that discussion and maybe look at them separately. One of the key things about all of these items, as well as the, the state legislation that again You know this resolution just asked that the housing subcommittee discuss a potential resolution regarding that state legislation. All of these would have as currently constituted would have exempt exemptions, you know for small owner occupant landlords this is really talking about people buying these 2030 unit buildings are building large luxury apartments or we're seeing now resale of large apartment complexes and the resulting rate rent increases. So really the focus is on is on those properties and what we can do as a city to try to limit the deep impact you know 15% rent increase in a year is really unsustainable and I think we're going to keep seeing that with just the high demand. and the regional issues around housing. And it's really important that as a city, we do our best to advocate for as much power as we can possibly have to make sure that residents have housing stability and aren't facing the trauma and deep emotional, financial and personal impacts that displacement and other forms of types of you know, eviction have on them. So that's the intent of this resolution here, is that we have the housing committee discuss what we can ask the state to return power to our community to do. And I would move approval on that, obviously, pending discussion of the council.
[Zac Bears]: We used to, and it worked well. And then the housing lobby and rich people in the W communities voted away our rights. So that's the fundamental story here. We used to have tools. And then they were taken away from people who don't live here, by people who don't live here. That's the story at the end of the day. Do I agree that it's a long hike? Yes. Do I agree with what you said that our reps are trying and quite frankly failing? Yes, I agree with that. It's not happening. And I don't even necessarily speak to our reps. At least two of our reps are supportive of all of this legislation, signed onto the bills that are here. You know, when we talk about why it's important for this city council to add our voice to a chorus. It's because the only way that anything gets done is when it's overwhelming demand from the people of the Commonwealth. Clearly that's the bar and the threshold of the state legislature, which is the sovereign authority of our state, which has the power to give and take our control over our community at a whim. They've decided it's an incredibly high bar. You have to, you know, do the Fair Share Amendment. It's going to take eight years to do the Fair Share Amendment when we're talking about millionaires making more money than they've ever made in their life. It's going to take you years. And then we're going to throw it in the trash when we're talking about a 15% rent hike in Medford. If they don't want to do their job, let us do the job. That's the purpose of this right here. Many communities, it started out in one community or two communities. It started out with the communities that had rent control and then had it stripped away from them in 1994. Sure. I'm not talking even about going back to those policies. That's not even necessarily what I'm saying. What we're looking at now is a much more targeted and defined policy saying if 8% a year isn't enough for you, whatever is going to be enough for you. I mean, basically the rules of the market as set now are if you're a renter, we can do whatever we want to you. And if we're a giant corporate property owner and landowner, we can make as much money as we want over the right to shelter. That's not a fair playing field. And it's our job to stand up and say we deserve power and tools as a community to level the playing field for the people who live here. That's the purpose here. I understand it's a long shot. Many things in life are a long shot. I don't think that means we shouldn't try. That's why I put this on the agenda with Councilor Collins. we should at least try. Maybe we'll lose, but at least we can say we tried and we believe that these are the tools and powers and opportunities that we need as a community to make sure that when we talk about a Green Line extension or a new high school or revitalizing our squares, that doesn't mean that that's just for rich people. I don't think just rich people deserve a nice high school or a nice Medford Square or access to public transit. I think we can create a set of policies and rules that allow growth and development and expansion to happen and benefit people in a broad range of incomes and preserve the income and economic diversity that we have as a community. I think that your point is well taken, that the past 20 years of inaction have left us in a very difficult position. Now we're going to really have to put the pedal to the metal to make sure that the vision of what people see Medford as, as a working class community, as a community where people of all incomes and all backgrounds can come together and live and work and play. Yeah, it's going to be hard. It's going to be hard to do that now, because there's been inaction and the state won't let us do anything. A lot of what I come up here on a variety of issues. We're going to talk about ball square. I think we just did a decent job with the zoning recodification to address some of those principles and make it so that we have more options for affordability for people. But it's all tools in the toolbox. It's all hands on deck. And this is another way that we can try to help. Medford residents, hey, and maybe we'll do it so well, all the communities around us will adopt it too, and then we'll have a regional model, and then we'll have solved the regional housing crisis, because that's the goal here. That's why the bill at the end would give the power to do all of these to all communities in the state. You know, this isn't even just an issue in Boston and regional, it's an issue in Nantucket. It's an issue in North Hampton. It's an issue everywhere. That's why people from across the state, councils from across the state, are putting forward resolutions like this and filing home rule petitions and trying to say, hey, state legislature, we understand that there are certain interests that have a very loud voice and have your ear. We think, hey, maybe the people should be the biggest interest on Beacon Hill. So that's what this is about. And I understand the position of my fellow Councilors. But what I just said is my position. And I hope everyone will. vote for this. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I think this is my third time, so I'll stop here. But to that exact point, you know, some of these things, you know, one of the big issues was is the fees, right? The upfront fees, first, last broker's fee, right? It's a really high burden and a high bar to pull all that together when you have 30 days or 60 days notice. That's one of the items in here. Just cause eviction protections to provide more time for folks. You know, I'm not saying we're going to get everything in here, but even one of these things would help. even one of these things would help. So that's why there's a list of policy ideas here that we can use. And I'll stop there. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: We do not have a director of IT.
[Zac Bears]: It's backup.
[Zac Bears]: Even if we voted on sending a home rule petition tonight, which we're not, the state would still have to take action on it. So we are about a million steps away from changing policy.
[Zac Bears]: It's possible they might have an opportunity to purchase the unit.
[Zac Bears]: The point about competition if we had a competitive market, then like we have a free market right now except for construction of housing. So well supply and demand, we massively constrict supply. So unless we want to talk about like the fundamental issue here is that the cost of housing is too high. That means for some people They have a windfall of they've owned this property. Maybe they bought it 50 years ago. Maybe they inherited whatever. And it's of a benefit to them. And I don't begrudge that whatsoever. But it means that for other people, it's completely inaccessible and they're never going to be able to live here. Now, if we want to talk about a fully free market solution to addressing the balance of supply and demand, to address the cost of housing, to make it reasonable for everybody, let's build 6,000 new units in this city. Can you find one person in this I can find one I know one person who comes to these meetings regularly will be completely fine if we build 6000 units in the city. I think that's about it. So that's the one answer. The other answer if you want to talk about addressing the cost of housing is limiting the growth of the cost of housing, using the powers of the government. Those are the options before us, I personally believe we should find a fair balance all of this, you know, just because there's an idea of a policy. It says right here, exemptions for small owner occupant landlords. I'm willing to discuss exemptions for people who maybe own a second home. I'm not saying it has to be everyone gets the right to purchase. I'm saying it's a potential tool that we should look at. That's the intent here, that all of these are potential tools. If you look at economic studies about rent stabilization, about all of these tools, there are places that make this work really well. where property owners can make a reasonable return, where renters have a level of stability. I mean, you know, the fundamental housing stability tool in the American housing market is the 30-year fixed rate mortgage. The 30-year fixed rate mortgage is a creation of the federal government that no reasonable financial institution would ever authorize, except for the backing of the federal government and the idea that it's fundamentally a way to say that a regular person with an average income should have the ability to know that what their housing payment is going to be next month, next year, 15 years, 30 years. So we can say to a homeowner, here you go, 30 years, you know exactly how much your rent's going to be every month, basically. But if you're a tenant and you can't afford a mortgage or you can't get a mortgage or that's not the option, well, here's a 15% increase, or here's a 30% increase, or it's going to be about supply and demand. So it's fundamentally about fairness. I'm not saying we should have a 1% rent control and everyone gets a right to purchase everything. And if you don't have, you know, if you're not burning the house down, you shouldn't get evicted. And, you know, price gouging means a single rent increase. I'm not saying any of that. I'm just saying, The tools have been stripped away from us as a community. We should have the option to look at a broad range of policies that address supply and that address things reasonably. It's going to be a big discussion. Mr. Petrell is right that having these discussions, there's going to be hundreds of people coming down here to want to have them. It should be an open process. I personally believe the state should leave it up to us to make these decisions. They've decided not to. We've been debating this for a while when fundamentally it's here's a bunch of ideas. Let's go talk about them more. That's the end of the end of the story here.
[Zac Bears]: There's a 1.2 million housing units in New York City where it works very well.
[Zac Bears]: I think it's the biggest and most successful and richest city in the history of the world.
[Zac Bears]: I'd be happy to add it to the list. And condo conversion, I'd be happy to add it to the list. The state doesn't let us do any of those things right now. That's what this discussion is about.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to force the reading.
[Zac Bears]: Second Councilor Knight's motion.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, no, just to add that they can apply for deferments beyond one year as well.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, sorry. As we discussed in the several meetings, the authority that allows us to implement this regulation stems from the public health dangers of preparing, essentially putting hot food on styrofoam. So that's both why it would not impact those two businesses and why the scope is so limited, as you noted.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve.
[Zac Bears]: Certainly, this is a major issue for families and we've been hearing a lot about it. You know, I do know that The team that runs Medford after school right now has, has looked at other communities that looked at Medford and we have at the Brooks school the biggest single school after school program in the whole state right now. We have incredibly high demand on all of the elementary school after school programs that is. even out of comparison to other communities that are similar. So there are some Medford specific problems here. And I think that's a good time for us. Again, I support this effort, any effort to try to address this, but it does seem like the big issues are the staffing. It's just difficult to find people for the two to 6 p.m. shift. So that may be finding an alternative there. You know, obviously that would require some significant systemic change with how the public school system works. And then the space question you say well we have these schools, how can we not have space. And, you know, it's really that these programs are limited to the existing shared spaces in the buildings like libraries gymnasiums and cafeterias so, you know, re looking at that would also be a significant change for everybody if we were to move into spaces that usually aren't used for programs like this, you know, that would be. there could be disruptions there. And I'm not saying these as barriers, I'm just saying that these are the things we need to get over. But I certainly am never gonna vote against trying, so I support this, support having a subcommittee and seeing what we can do on it. but obviously in partnership with the Metro Public Schools, which is going to be included as the mayor's office. And, you know, we can have good ideas, but if it requires money, we can't do it. And if it requires space in the schools, we can't do that. So, you know, it's really going to need to be a partnership of all the branches of government.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. In addition to everything you just said, I think my other intention here, certainly with paper 20-534 in this paper, is to look at the opportunities. This is a supply side answer to this housing question an area where it's going to be transit oriented and you're going to have that walkability and we have the density. You know, you turn a couple two families into three families that's a big, big change it's big change and we'd have to talk about it but if you're point one miles from a train station, maybe that makes sense in this modern age so you know, well, I'm sure that I will forever be the boogeyman. I support solutions of all stripes to address the problems that we face, and I think this is one of them.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Well, I certainly am very supportive and have had many friends around the marathon. I will be supporting this resolution, but I sadly will not be watching the marathon because I will be watching your speech at Patriot's Day. So very excited, Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: I expect a marathon speech for the ages. So there are city celebrations Monday morning as well for Patriot's Day.
[Zac Bears]: just regarding unfinished business. Mr. Clerk, have we received those requests for report for information regarding those 90 day reviews?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, that'd be great. If we could try to spool up some people to get that on the agenda next week would be great. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Excuse me. I support this measure wholeheartedly. I'd like to propose a B paper just to request that the administration report to us on what communications methods they used to reach out to residents regarding the new parking program and whether or not they plan to include any information about this program in mailings to city residents or property owners.
[Zac Bears]: changes, and whether or not they send any communications through mail. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilor Collins for putting this on the agenda. I think this is really an essential effort considering when this contract goes up. the new contract will be pricier than the current contract. And as I think we've seen, there's a lot of increases in the cost of waste removal and waste management. Since we last signed the contract on this, one of the ways that we can mitigate the impact of the growing cost of waste removal, crowding out other essential priorities in the city budget, is to reduce the amount of overall waste that we are producing as a city. So I think this is a great resolution and I second it and will support it.
[Zac Bears]: Reports of- Motion to suspend the rules to take public participation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. you know, I think you're all experiencing very directly the housing crisis that we're in in this area. Something that we as a council have talked a lot about is housing stability and what city resources we can provide. But, you know, I think Councilor Collins was very direct. You know, we are constrained by state law. We can't go in and say you can't do this. It's not within the power of the city of Medford to do that. What is within our power is to do what Councilor Collins said and what I think if President Morell may read the update if it hasn't gone to all of you. provide as many resources and as much information as possible. We do have access to pro bono legal aid for housing situations for residents of the city. We have a program that helps people move within the city with financial support. And to be direct, there's a lot of state laws that need to change around this. I think we've been advocating, at least I've been advocating for some of those changes at this point, even if they were to go through, it's not gonna stop the situation. And I'm sorry for that, but they do need to change. The other piece of this is I think fully, if you are able and if it, with the advice of legal counsel, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not certainly not your lawyer, but if you're able to get that legal advice, you do have a significant number of protections on the table here. They've provided a notice to quit that's now gonna be active after 60 days. That's the initiation of a process. It's not the end of a process. That process would then, essentially begin an eviction proceeding, which would then take you before a judge, that can last months. It may not end the way that you want it to, but it may give you enough time to find something in this market. So I would suggest that. or with the advice of council, if it's possible for you, if it's not going to impact you negatively in some other way, just fully see out your legal rights. And that may extend the process with enough time. But, you know, we as a city also need to take, you know, going forward, this is an example of why we need more resources for housing stability, more than just a couple people, more than just a couple affordable units, because it takes months and months and months. to find housing in this market and with the very limited supply of housing. So I again I'm also very sorry that this is happening. you know, big corporate change has just suddenly uprooted your lives. And I wish that we had more power to help, but certainly we can advocate, continue to reach out to this person, ask them to be compassionate, as Councilor Caraviello said, ask them to extend the time period. And if they won't do anything more there, I certainly would suggest that you avail yourselves of all of the options that come before you in the legal process to extend this and give yourself as much time as you can to find new housing.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And it's, that's fair. I mean, there's the answer that Councilor and I just gave you, which is about the specific circumstance in the court of law and your legal rights. I mean, then there's the other question that you're bringing up. You've been here for 40 years. That means that you remember 30 years ago when it, you know, voters in Wellesley voted away, went control for people in Boston, you know, do you think owns the corporations that are buying up the apartment. And that's where it is, you know, we are extremely limited by state law, there's a couple things that we can try to do, we can try to provide more resources and notice about your legal rights, which is what we're able to do in this case, that's something we can do. I mean, I'm an advocate of asking the state to implement a lot of laws to kind of create create a better set of conditions for people.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And there's a, you know, there's a lot of groups.
[Zac Bears]: There's a lot of groups and tenants, advocates and people who are saying, you know, begging the state government, you know, they'll do anything, you know, unanimously they'll pass a law that says, you know, we'll free up this zoning and you can build something bigger, but They won't attach to it just cause eviction or rent stabilization so you can have a 30% rent increase in a single year, or, you know, the tenant opportunity to purchase or all these other things that would give tenants more of a balance in this fight. And so, you know, that's something that we can advocate for but we legally can't implement any of that unless the state lets us. And I'm just saying, it's worth going to the next level and saying, this happened in your state rep district or your state Senate district, and we need you to take, we need you to do something. And, you know, it's, yeah, I think you've made a very strong point about the conditions of who's making the law in Massachusetts.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Um, last week we met again in subcommittee on rules and ordinances. Uh, I think our third meeting At our March 9th meeting, we reported out a number of suggested changes. We reported out a number of additional suggested changes at our March 29th meeting. And those will be, I believe, included in packets this week, both a track change document and a clean document. The other item we reported out was an item for further discussion, which was around our meetings, days, times, Tuesday to Wednesday, biweekly, a number of other matters that the subcommittee felt required the full discussion of the council and not a recommendation from just three councilors. So that will be kind of the agenda is going over the suggested changes, as well as a discussion of the meeting times for the council.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Is who from the administration is here to speak? I guess my question is not actually on the appointment of the licensing commission, but the reason it was tabled was to discuss whether appointments were made to, or were going to be made to the board of registrars. I'm seeing that there are not appointments here on our agenda, so that no permanent appointments have been suggested, but are there, basically, is there someone from the administration who could speak to what's happening with appointments to the boards of registrars?
[Zac Bears]: Well, I think I was, I'd just like to know whether appointments have been made. I don't know if, there's no one on the call who can answer that question.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I was just wondering if we could get an update from the administration on appointments to the boards of registrars of voters for the board of registrars of voters.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. I would second Councilor Knights motion to approve Mr. Delafano's appointment.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. We've been discussing this since, I believe, our first meeting of this, uh, year, and this would, as we've discussed in committee of the whole and in prior meetings, establish a board of election commissioners as a way to modernize and improve the way that elections are conducted in our community to meet the needs of our times with the sheer amount of work that's happening with elections. We've discussed this extensively I'm happy to summarize again, but it's basically in what you just read. This would be the council adopting the provisions of Massachusetts general law chapter 51 section 16A to create a board of election commissioners. The current board of registrars would become the board of election commissioners. And then, as we just discussed tonight, the mayor would come to us to make permanent appointments to set board of election commissioners. when when it is established. Um, so, uh, that's basically the intent of this ordinance. The elections would be run by this board of election commissioners that would no longer be combined with the office of the city clerk.
[Zac Bears]: Just thank you, Mr. Cassidy, and I hope we'll see you at the meeting when we discuss this.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna thank Councilor Saint for bringing this forward. I think this is a great way to turn plans and papers and documents into real action. And I think that's what this council's here to do. You know, it's great to have a plan on file and it's even better to actually be digging in and figuring out exactly what we can do. So I support this wholeheartedly, second your motions and look forward to the discussion.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Tseng Councilor Collins and Councilor Scarpelli. Uh, I completely agree with everything you've all said, and I just want to add to the point. Um, you know, it'll be great to hear from the administration. You know, obviously they have the authority to iron fire. They run the departments. They do all of that. But I just want to shout out that this council has also been, I think, doing our work with our proposal around paid family medical leave for city and school employees was discussing the sickly bank and $15 minimum wage which I'm hoping will get on the schedule soon as well. And now that we have the city has hired a finance director that was the prerequisite that the administration said we'd be happy to discuss paid family medical leave once we have a finance director on board now we have that. Obviously, that's not directly related to this. I'd love to hear what the administration's doing, but I also just want to point out that I think this council is taking strong steps forward to try to do this work as well. So thank you for putting this forward. Of course, I will support it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And I think it's been a helpful dialogue. I think you are seeing in your six months here that we live and work in a deeply underfunded city government. Tens of millions of dollars underfunded maybe more than that. And I think just, I think we've kind of moved beyond maybe some points of tension we were at earlier now that we've had the discussion that we've just had, but I think something that And maybe we should put this in the onboarding handbook or something. This council has traditionally, and in my opinion, to an extent, been relied on to serve as a constituent services department for the city, because we have one constituent affairs person. And, and then it's, you know, directors and you know you directors right it's like, I'll call Fay right that's what meant for residents are thinking in their head. That's the person who has the most time to answer 200 phone calls. And I think that's some of the reason why there's some tension here is because instead of having the fully built out city government that the residents of this community deserve, we take on the additional role of getting phone calls and getting complaints and fielding emails. And we're not here every day in this building, sitting in the parking department, knowing what's going on or sitting in the mayor's office, knowing what's going on. So that creates automatically whether it's parking or any other issue in the city. I think a point of tension for us where it's like, how do we get the information that we need to answer the questions that we're being asked? Because basically the city doesn't have enough people working for it to effectively answer the questions that the people are asking. So maybe that point would have been a better 20 minutes ago, but I think that's some of the tension here too, is just that, you know, we're all, all of us in the different roles that we play are asked to do an incredible amount of work because because we don't fund the city budget and don't have the resources necessary to adequately provide services to the people of our community. So, and I think that's going to be a point of tension every time any department comes before us for a budget right we've been asking and talking about a lawyer because we need an assistant city solicitor because we have one city solicitor right now and we can't get stuff back parking you need multiple clerks because you're getting 300 400 500 phone calls a day, and not to expound upon this any further but it's just a situation that I think puts us all in a difficult position sometimes so I just want to thank you for this conversation and for the work that you're doing. And, and we're gonna, at least I'm going to keep sounding that horn, as long as I sit here. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, that just would be, you know, That doesn't be very helpful accounts tonight said to have a written opinion that states answers the question we asked around the calf changes that have been sitting on the agenda, so we can move on. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And I'm sure that this council would at least one as one Councilor would entertain proposals from the administration to fund housing stability purposes in the city as We have been asking for that for many years at this point, especially since the beginning of the pandemic, but even before that, my just one request would be, I'm kind of disturbed to hear that statement about asbestos, and that leads me to think that there may be other inspectional health and safety issues I question here. So I would just ask that the building commissioner and the code enforcement officers be included in this process going forward. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: After three years. And I think six different members of the subcommittee, I wanna thank Councilor Tseng, Councilor Scarpelli, as well as Councilor Caraviello and former Councilors Falco and Marks, all of whom who have served on the subcommittee with me since early 2020 to work on the sewer removal ordinance. I'm happy to say that we reported out a version of the sewer removal ordinance, as well as a number of recommendations, policy recommendations to the city that are outside the purview of the council for consideration by this council and the committee of the whole meeting, hopefully soon. And I think the process has been exhaustive and extensive and that the product will be good for our community and good for all of the offices and officers of the city who are involved in snow removal. So I look forward to that committee of the whole soon and hopefully some additional reporting out and hopefully the adoption of said ordinance. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, just to echo Councilor Collins, I think for a major break in the road that's just requires some sort of emergency patching to call DPW and mention that and ask, when are they coming out to fill this emergency hole? But in terms of the actual long-term plan for resurfacing streets and sidewalks in our community, there's over a $100 million backlog in the paving of streets and sidewalks in the city. And we currently don't, As far as I know the mayor's office does not has not released a plan for how to fund that backlog so that's certainly something that this council has been asking for and requesting. Ever since we received the report about the condition of roads and sidewalks in 2021 I believe, but it's definitely a severe issue, and it goes back to the issues of funding in our community, but in terms of the short term definitely. contact DPW. I'm sure many of us will also be in touch with DPW now that you've brought this before the council to see if we can get some emergency patching done on North Street. Thank you for coming before us tonight.
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank everyone who's put so much work into this process. I've lost count of the number of meetings, I think maybe 15, 16, somewhere in there, just of the Council, not including many meetings of the Community Development Board. I echo Councilor Knight's comments about the significance of this change and bringing us into the modern day and hopefully making a lot clearer for everybody involved what can happen and can't happen as regards our zoning. And I also see this as a foundation for moving forward, a way for us to much more easily make the tweaks and changes that we need as we are growing as a city, both to protect our community and to grow our community. And I think that's gonna be a lot easier now, especially with this group of people who have read so much and done so much and look so much into this code. Definitely much more knowledgeable about zoning now than I was three years ago. So thank you all for your work on this and I'm definitely supporting our work tonight and moving, you know, voting to approve this. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, and thank you for your comments. I wholeheartedly agree. When Councilor Marks was mentioned, it reminded me that we should thank all the residents who participated in this process. I think he would be loudly voicing that. We had a lot of residents involved in our committee of the whole meetings, raising questions, some of whom are here tonight. And if you watched any of those community development board meetings, those are pretty resident focused as well. There were a lot of different residents from a lot of parts of the city finding typos and looking for commas and providing, you know, really substantive and helpful advice on zoning and planning and development. Um, so just wanted to add that to, to the record tonight before we vote. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Just that I believe we should reflect the language of the amendment that you just read in the actual language of the petition before it is submitted. And basing that language on the language of the city charter of the city of Medford, that would be a motion to amend this to replace at the end of section two, the words may be filled by majority vote of the entire commission that would be struck and would be replaced with shall be filled by that defeated candidate who received the highest number of votes for that specific seat and is eligible and willing to serve.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. So I can have and that's that's straight from the city charter. Although it takes up the word city council.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President. Thank you, Madam President. The 6500 would include current units within the radii.
[Zac Bears]: And I'm sure if you haven't gotten there yet, that's fine, but would say triple deckers versus two families meet the per acre requirement instead of moving to five, six, seven story buildings.
[Zac Bears]: Right, because I would think that would be a good tool in our toolbox. compared to say knocking down a bunch of two families and building an eight story, whatever, or whatever that would look like. Third question, just looking at Wellington, there's a lot of water in that half mile. How would that affect this minimum land area calculation?
[Zac Bears]: Right. And just the ball square station is technically in Medford, right?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And then just, you know, I know it's right there on the corner of a corner, but you know. Yeah. Yeah. I'll leave it at that. But just to say that this whole, this did not go through the legislative process. If anyone was following it when this passed at the end of 2020, this was snuck in at the end of December with a bunch of other stuff that a year before one representative was able to stop because they tried to pass an informal session and someone stood up and said, well, hold on a minute. If you're going to do this, you need to give us these tools that allow us to protect people who are here and avoid displacement. And that never happened. And the negotiations were never filled. And, you know, I think we're suffering from that. It seems like DHCD is, you know, this was Governor Baker's proposal, it's Governor Baker's housing department. And he's really pushing the envelope here, it seems to me. So I'm frustrated with this, as I was frustrated when they passed this 15 months ago. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to receive and place on file.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President. Thank you. Yeah, and I appreciate council night's points. And again, Mr. Delfano, my comments here are not reflective of your appointment, but I do think when an appointment, this was advertised as an urgent appointment, it was advertised as important. I didn't see similar advertising for the board of registrars, first of all, but secondly, in general, I don't think that appointees should be coming here and justifying their own appointments to this council. I think that should be the process of the city of Medford and the mayor's administration to come before this council and present an appointee to answer questions on behalf of that appointee. and then allow the appointee to speak on their own behalf and answer questions as well. But there are a number of appointments. I just think the process here on a number of appointments, both why are things sitting vacant so long? What is the appointment process in general? You know, this council doesn't have the authority to confirm any appointments. The ones that it does have the authority to confirm are some of the most important appointments to boards and commissions in this city. And I just think that the process needs to be improved. I certainly wouldn't mind beyond the administration coming here and presenting the appointments themselves, you know, presenting the rationale as to why they appointed this person, the applications of the people who applied for the position and why they chose this eventual appointee. I just think there's a lot of transparency in the process that could be brought to this council, brought before the council, especially given the fact that we don't approve every single appointment to boards and commissions, but especially when it comes to the board of registrars and the fact that You know, we were having such delay there. I would move to table this until we receive further appointments as are so urgently needed in this community. And again, Mr. Delfano, this is not reflective of you. It's just reflective of where we are right now in terms of appointments to boards and commissions in the city. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I would be happy to amend my motion to table for one week, just to get a response from the administration.
[Zac Bears]: I'll withdraw the motion. Temporarily to hear from the chief of staff.
[Zac Bears]: Is there a more significant commitment that the Chief of Staff could make relative to a timeline for when registrars will be appointed? Other than that, what will it be looked into? Madam President.
[Zac Bears]: I would motion to table for one week. And I would hope that the long awaited issues both around the Elections Commission and the potential appointment of a registrar would be on our agenda next week. Thank you. So motion to table for one week.
[Zac Bears]: I didn't have my microphone on, but my answer to the president's question was there's no additional amendment to the paper other than tabling for one week. Other than that, I would hope that papers to address these concerns would appear on the council agenda next week. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: If I may ask before that, have you received any updates on the reports that were requested? in the reports due, did we receive any updates?
[Zac Bears]: Great. It would be, if you could maybe send them another reminder, if we could maybe try to have those by next week and then we can, thank you. In terms of the records of March 15th, I found them in order and I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Councilor Knight, Councilor Collins, and myself met in the Ordinances and Rules Subcommittee. We reviewed a number of papers before the committee, as well as proposals. previously existing and new proposals around the rules. We agreed to a certain number of minor changes and also developed a list of further topics to discuss, and we will hopefully be having a meeting in the next few weeks to go through that list of additional items to discuss, and then reporting something out to the committee of the whole.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, and my comments, very similar to Councilor Knights, which are just that if you have a question about what's happened in this city and you wanna compare something that's happening now to something that's happened basically the entire time we've had this charter, Larry's the person to talk to, and I'm grateful to have a lot of great conversations after our meetings with Larry. So I'm very supportive of this motion.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, thank you Councilor Knight for bringing this forward. He took the word right in my mouth, I was going to mention the circumstances here and you know vision zero and design and I think. Too often we hear tragic and unfortunate when it comes to something like this, when it really should be, how can we change the conditions of our roads to make sure that this doesn't happen? And that's a personal issue to me. So thank you for bringing this forward.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thanks for the presentation, Molly. You know, we did, I just wanted to see. And I don't know if this is similar to the presentation you might be giving tomorrow, but we spent 8.6 million of the ARPA money on revenue recovery in fiscal 22. And I was just wondering if I just didn't see it in the list of things that we had spent money on. And so is that a non-exhaustive list of things that money had been spent on, or is it just that that one piece, that revenue recovery piece wasn't included in the list?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, great. I just, you know, I think, I think people are going to be surprised when they see, looking at the revenue replacement formula from the final rule, just how much revenue we lost and just how much of the 48 million is probably going to end up in a revenue replacement fund. And I think that that might be a good thing to let people know, you know, we see 48 million people think all our problems are solved. If we end up spending 32 of a million of that on revenue replacement, then the pool for the PAYGO programs is much smaller. So that's just my one piece of feedback, but thank you for the presentation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, three more things came up in my head. But not to just keep being a broken record on the revenue replacement piece, but is the thought that that will be estimated out through December 2026. Like how much revenue we expect to replace in each fiscal year just because I think again, The last thing we want to do is commit to fund a project, but then come back and say, either we can't fund that project, because we need to use this for revenue replacement, or say, we have a $500,001 million deficit on the budget, I mean because that 8.6 million was incredibly important to preventing teacher layoffs and staff layoffs and program cuts so is the thought that you'd say, so for fiscal 23, we'll need this much, fiscal 24, we'll need this much, fiscal 25, we'll need this much, fiscal 26, and then subtract that out and say, so that's the chunk that we're gonna need using this formula, and that leaves this chunk that we can use for other projects, or just what's the approach gonna be?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah. And I just, you know, I think we're all hopeful that it goes, you know, 8.65210. But if it goes 8.6, 8.6, 8.6, 8.6 for five years, that's all the money, you know? So that's just something that's on my mind. Second piece, and this is, I know this is a presentation on ARPA, but you are the federal funds manager. Do you have any inkling of when like infrastructure bill funding may be headed our way, or is that in the next three months or six months or 12 months? And obviously you've been hard at work on ARPA, so if it's just hasn't, you haven't gotten there yet, I understand that.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, gotcha. And then last thing, it's a very specific comment, but again, if you're gonna use this presentation going forward and post it on the website, At least I personally, and I think other people may have a visceral reaction to the funnel diagram. Just from a total design standpoint, maybe look at like circles with plus signs between them instead of the funnel, because I think people might see the funnel as a wastebasket. It's just totally random thought, but it just came to my head immediately. I understood what your intent was, but I think other people, for whatever reason, may see it differently.
[Zac Bears]: I think we should ask the state to cap inflation at 2.5%, just like they cap our ability to address inflation at 2.5%.
[Zac Bears]: I just have a few questions.
[Zac Bears]: A point of information on the earmarks, you could download the PDF. I think there's actually something on the state website on mass.gov that shows that your marks in the ARPA bill, and you can search by city.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. If I may. just another point of information. Um, just as the bill was, uh, under consideration, I was in communication with state representatives and Senator Jalen sending different ideas that I thought would be useful. But I think as they consider another ARPA bill, and I'm sure that the mayor's office was similarly in communication, um, When they consider the other bill on the other $2 billion, I think it would be useful for all members of city government to communicate any interests or priorities to them. So we got some good stuff in there. Duggar Park is getting a bunch of money. Trees and stump replacement funding. I think there's a set aside for us to, it's not enough to actually do the project, but some money set aside for the South Street and Main Street intersection reconstruction project. There's a couple other ones that I don't remember.
[Zac Bears]: to accept the committee report before we- Yes, sorry, motion to suspend the rules to take committee reports.
[Zac Bears]: And thank you, Madam President, just if I may, I chaired that meeting and I tried to make it very clear to the public that these were urgent family and medical issues. So any misinterpretation. It wasn't your fault. No, I appreciate it. The goal was to keep everyone in the loop, not to put anyone on the spot. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, I just wanted to add, as someone who does move through the area and spend some time in the area, I do think some of these don't block the box proposals would be helpful because you just have people sitting, you know, I think you have Bonner and Maine here, but to be honest, we should probably have one at Maine and Harvard and maybe define turning lanes. I mean, that intersection gets really rough with people, you know, people turning left and then people going around them. And then God forbid, there's someone in the intersection, you know, that can cause accidents as well as Harvard. And I can't think of the other street right now, but it's about halfway between Mystic and Harvard and Maine and Harvard. It's the cross street of crossing Harvard. For some reason I'm blanking. It might be, but yeah, so, you know, I think those interventions would be helpful just to not have the traffic backup also block intersections, which causes backups into the neighborhoods even further. Thank you for putting this forward.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And, you know, definitely completely agree with many of our commenters. And, you know, I think I've said this a few times in the past that I will occasionally be a broken record, but this is another broken record moment. The backlog of repair. So just bringing up current streets and sidewalks to good condition in their current design is $170 million. The annual budget of the city is $190 million. Right. And I believe we're looking at A million or 2 million in that budget that's dedicated to street and sidewalk repair every year. So that's what 7080 years will maybe get there and we all know that the rate of deterioration of streets and sidewalks is much faster so we're actually never going to get there with current levels of investment. Because of state laws is drastically underfunded. I think we seriously once again need to look at as part of a solution to a variety of problems, something like a debt exclusion to address design issues roads and sidewalks you know if we're talking about $170 million backlog. We're just never going to get there with the revenues we have now, the federal money that's coming in for infrastructure and ARPA still isn't going to get us there. And maybe it'll make a dent, maybe we'll make a 10 or $20 million dent we don't know exactly what the mayor's proposing around the use of that money yet. But, you know, essentially if we stay status quo with the money that we have now we're going to have poorly designed streets with potholes and sidewalks that no one can walk on. And if that's a decision that the community wants to live with and that's a decision that they can live with but I do think it's our obligation as leaders of this community to at least ask that the community and the voters. what kind of community they want to live in. And without new revenue, we are not going to solve this problem. It will never be solved. So until someone, and again, you know, when it comes to funding, this city council under our current form of government, we cannot initiate appropriations. We can only cut, we can only say no or cut. So until the leadership of this community wants to put a proposal before this council, maybe for a bond issue or before the voters for a debt exclusion, Basically the answer I can give you is unless we get a grant from the state, which we did on, you know, for some of the safe routes at the Roberts and the safe routes at the Brooks, we will not be able to solve this problem. So it is certainly a funding problem and status quo on it means that we're going to continue to have streets and sidewalks that are poorly designed and unsafe. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: That's not at all what it's saying. Yeah, it's nothing close to this.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. You know what this resolution sites is a state report showing that these data are true, that the statistically significant difference and disparities in stop outcomes are happening. What this resolution asks us to do is to figure out why. And I would guess that this chief, given his decisions, given his role to reform the Medford Police Department, given the statements and stated goals of our police department, that if this resolution were to go before the chief, he would be concerned. he would want to know the answer to why these facts are these facts. And I think that did some, you know, a good role of this council to present information to our department heads when that information comes before us. And, you know, if they haven't seen it before, they can report back to us and say, you know, that was concerning information. This is the review that we did. These are the reasons we found. And maybe that reason We don't know those reasons. We can't say what the reason is until there's an investigation that has happened. So, you know, it's not a fishing expedition when there are facts on the table that indicate that there's a question as to why there's a statistically significant correlation between race and ethnicity and stop outcomes in Medford. That doesn't mean we know why there's a statistically significant correlation. And if we wanna, as Councilor Marks would say, bury our heads in the sand, and not find out the answers to our questions, we're more than welcome to do that. I think the chief and the city and this council and the people of Medford would like to know why the data are the way they are. And I look forward to the explanation heretofore.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, and I appreciate the comments of my fellow Councilors. I just want to just for clarity sake, this this report uses data that our police department sends to the state so this report is is Medford specific. Now it's saying the data shows there's a disparity, but it doesn't indicate what the reason it's right and I think that's, you know, no one here is saying we know why there's a disparity. And all we know is that in Medford specifically, there's the data, there's a statistically significant correlation. And I think all we're asking is to say, since we have that data that shows in Medford and fairness to you on the pandemic year and data collection, we all know how much of a mess the census was and everything else, right? So maybe the data is skewed for 2020, but I do believe this is a relatively new report from the state. And all we're saying is, All this resolution is saying is, if the data shows that there's a correlation between those two things, let's find out why no one is no one is intending to say that we know why or that we're putting a motivation or rationale or a reason behind that. But, you know, as I said before, I think all of us in this room would benefit from the answer as to why and if the answer as to why is data collection was skewed or, you know, this other reason or that's important for us to know too because it actually bolsters the case right around community trust and around the fact that things are better. And so that's I think where we're where this is trying to go and why I support it.
[Zac Bears]: Just if I may, just to quickly further add yeah this was pursuant to the acts of 2019 so it is a new state report. I think they're taking data that we're generating here, and even what you're asking for is, if we're generating that data and sending the state, why not put it on the city website to right we already created it we already have it so, you know, It's a new thing from the state. And I, and I also know that this, this police department is doing a lot right now to adapt to changing state law. And that was a big focus of a recent meeting I had with the chief. So I'm, I'm hopeful that this is just another piece of this can be another piece of that process.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you as a man and present point of information. I just wanted to add, and I think Councilor Tseng presented this when introduced it. I think one of the good, good news pieces here is the report said that there is no statistically significant correlation between stops themselves and race, which goes exactly to your point. It's not that people are seeing certain people and pulling them over for a reason of race. It specifically says that that's not happening in Medford. It's the outcome after the fact that there's data that shows there may be, that there's something to ask a question about. So I think, you know, there's actually good news in the report, which is it proves what people have been saying is that people aren't being pulled over for any reasons of race or bias. And I think, you know, I just, yeah, I'll stop there.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And that's exactly what this is. And just to read from the report, just to make Councilor Tseng's point, It says the significant data indicates observed pattern in the table is real and not due to chance alone. And then the actual report says this report serves as a starting point for further discussion on racial disparities in traffic enforcement in Massachusetts as previously stated statistical analyses of aggregate department level data can only identify disparities in law enforcement citizen interactions. There are a number of reasons why disparities may occur in law enforcement citizen interactions and bias. both individual bias and institutional bias is only one of the many causes of disparities. The overall goal of this study is to learn more about potential patterns of racial disparities and traffic stops for the purposes of providing an opportunity for reflection and understanding of the causes of these disparities and building or maintaining community trust, ultimately making us all safer. That's the language of this. I agree with Councilor Tseng that he actually made, you know, was not as intentionally direct as the report was to make sure that there weren't misinterpretations, but yes, there still were misinterpretations. So, you know, we're literally doing what I think what everyone wants us to do here, which is to ask the chief for why, to help us move from seeing disparities to understanding causes.
[Zac Bears]: At the chair.
[Zac Bears]: Because I don't believe that we should be spewing lies in the public forum.
[Zac Bears]: Madam president, given the councilor is absent, can we do voice votes?
[Zac Bears]: President, just before we go to records, I'd like to make a motion regarding reports due and deadlines. And that motion is to request a report within 10 days from the police department, building department and health department on any complaints they've received relative to, let me know, Mr. Clerk, when you're ready.
[Zac Bears]: 20-639 and 21-363 with the intent of hopefully getting those reviews completed and off the agenda.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, from police department, building department, and health department, any complaints received relative to those 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, some of them are 30-day reviews, 60-day reviews, 90-day reviews.
[Zac Bears]: Request a report on those complaints relative to those six items, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: February 15th.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to adjourn, seconded by... Second, but we have a subcommittee on ordinances and rules meeting tomorrow night at six o'clock to review the council rules.
[Zac Bears]: Seventh regular meeting Medford City Council, February 15th, 2022 is now called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. Please rise to salute the flag. Hearings 22-037, City of Medford Notice of Public Hearing. The Medford City Council will hold a continued public hearing in the Howard F. Alden Chambers at Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford. and via Zoom on Tuesday, February 15th, 2022 at 7 p.m. on a petition from Orba Linabazi of OB's Auto Service to operate an automotive repair and auto body shop class four license at 38 Harvard Avenue, Medford MA 02155 in a C1 zoning district. A Zoom link for this meeting will be posted no later than February 4th, 2022. Petition and plan may be seen in the office of the city clerk, Medford City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts 02155. Chair of licensing, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Second. Motion of Councilor Scarpelli to move approval, seconded by Councilor Knight. Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Motions, orders, and resolutions 22-074 offered by Councilor Knight, whereas the provisions of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 44, Section 33A reads, Section 33A, salary provisions in budget requirements and limitations, Section 33A, the annual budget shall include some sufficient to pay the salaries of officers and employees fixed by law or by ordinance, notwithstanding any contrary provision of any city charter, No ordinance providing for any increase and increase in salaries or wages of municipal officers or employees shall be enacted except by a two thirds vote of the city council, nor unless it is to be operative for more than three months during the calendar year which is passed, no new position shall be created or increase in rates made by ordinance vote or appointment during the financial year subsequent to the submission of the annual budget. Unless provision therefore has been made by means of a supplemental appropriation, no ordinance vote or appointment creating a new position in any year in which a municipal election is held shall be valid and effective unless said ordinance vote or appointment is operative for more than three months during said municipal election. being so resolved that the City Solicitor render an opinion as to whether the City of Medford is in compliance with the aforementioned provisions of law in regards to the positions outlined in Council Papers 22-023 and 21-631. If you can indulge me for one moment, Councilor Knight, those items were tabled at last week's meeting pending an opinion of the City Solicitor. I do not believe this Council has received the opinion of the City Solicitor, so those items are still on the table, are still tabled. Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Second. Thank you, Councilor Knight. Any further discussion? If I may, from the chair, just Councilor Knight, if you'd be willing to also make sure that I know that you're asking for the opinion, are you asking me relative to the full section or just the two thirds vote.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes. And the reason I asked is just that this, uh, this third clause here, uh, no ordinance voter appointment, creating a new position in any year in which a municipal election is held. Uh, some of these papers were filed in a, in a election year. So, um, in addition to the two thirds of what I just want clarification on, on the election year provision as well. And from the chair, thank you for your clarification about proceedings last week. It's much appreciated. Yeah. Nothing personal at all on the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Caraviello? Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, none in the negative. Motion passes. 22-075 offered by Councilor Scarpelli, be it resolved that the City Council look into concerns dealing with delays with the structure being built at the corner of Lawrence Road and Forest Street, and if the interests of public safety and simple community standards are being followed. Be it further resolved that a representative of the building department and the developer slash owner slash applicant for this permit present themselves before the city council committee of the whole to provide an update and to address the ongoing concerns of trash, dumpsters, debris, unkept property, and other matters. We have further resolved that the Medford Police Department notify the council if the department is aware of possible squatters living at that location. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of council, I have to approve, seconded by? Second. Seconded by Councilor, we can still have public participation. Any more comments from fellow councilors? Members of the public would like to speak on this issue can approach the microphone or raise your hand on Zoom. Let me come forward. You can just provide your name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you, Mrs. Ryan. Any further comments from the public? We have one. Could you just say it into the microphone.
[Zac Bears]: Appreciate it. I think the text of the amendment. the building commissioner or code enforcement officers cite the property for not following the snow and ice removal ordinance. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Knight, as amended by Councilor Scarpelli. Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Whereas Lawrence Memorial was graded as one of the 100 best hospitals in America, and number three overall in the state providing care for Medicare patients, be it so resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate the staff and administration of Lawrence Memorial Hospital on their outstanding patient care, and be it further resolved that the Medford City Council invite hospital staff and administration to a future council meeting for presentation of a council accommodation recognizing this achievement. Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Nai. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comments? If I may, just from the chair, I'd like to second everyone else's sentiments in that it may not be what we fought for in terms of keeping an emergency department, but they are still providing very high quality care. And I've heard very good things about their urgent care as well. So any further discussion, any discussion by members of the public? Sure, you may come up to the rail and give your name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Thank you, Ms. Diaso. Any further comments? On the motion of Councilor Knights, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. As amended.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Bears, yes 70 affirmative zero the negative emotion passes 22-077 offered by Councilor Knight. It's a result that the Medford City Council request special permit holder prestige car wash appear at a future science subcommittee meeting to discuss signage traffic flow and use of outdoor audio systems, audio system issues associated with operations Councilor.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion. Discussion from members of the public. Seeing none on the motion of Council night seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes 70 affirmative zero and the negative the motion passes 22-078 offered by Councilor curve yellow. It's a result of the Medford City Council allow the mayor to appropriate 2500 to help offset the legal costs associated with Chevalier auditorium battle with the encore casino. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight Councilor Tseng and then Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Any further discussion from members of the council? One second, Andrew, just from the chair, I just wanted to add that I agree with the sentiments of the council. I want to note two things. Number one, this is a request from the council for the mayor to spend these funds, whether to put forward an appropriation or to just spend the funds, which we believe that she has a discretion to do on her own. And secondly, I just wanted to note for the record, that the council did receive a letter in support of this resolution from the Chevalier Commission and Acting Chairperson Mike Oliver. Now, if there's no further discussion from members of the council, I'll take members of the public. Mr. Castagnetti, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Cindy.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Cindy. Any further public participation? We'll go to Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Sure, you may come to the podium.
[Zac Bears]: If I may, there have been efforts, I believe, with the Friends of Chevalier and the Chevalier Commission to reach out to places like Beverly, Salem, places with similar sized, they're not neighboring communities, but it's similar competition with, you know, the Cabot Theater, institutions like that. So I know some of that has happened. I don't know what's happening between our mayor and other mayor.
[Zac Bears]: It's a state court issue it's also the Gaming Commission, all I can say is that this council has not received any communication from the administration about a specific plan to address this on legal terms other than that, I, you know,
[Zac Bears]: That's the difficulty. So for example, this resolution tonight, we are asking the mayor to spend this money. We don't have the authority to initiate the spending of money as a city council. So in reality, the mayor would need to either spend the money out of her legal services budget or send an appropriation request to the city council for some additional amount. That hasn't happened. We can't generate that ourselves. We don't have the ability to spend money without the request of the mayor.
[Zac Bears]: It's not technically an appropriation it's a request that the count the council is asking the mayor to spend that money, but it is not, it has, it's not, but you don't force that okay so you don't know the firm yet or the allocated legal, I believe it's to join whichever firm, Mr. Blumenreich is currently working with.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just thought maybe this council would entertain any again.
[Zac Bears]: I think at this point.
[Zac Bears]: We have a couple of other people. First, I'm gonna recognize Mike Oliver, acting chairperson of the Chevalier Commission. Mr. Oliver, I've requested that you unmute. And if you could just wait a moment for us, Ms. Watson, we have a couple of people on Zoom. Thank you, Mr. Oliver. Name and address for the record, please. Mr. Oliver, you're on. If you could give us your name and address for the record and then give us your comments.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight, and thank you, Mr. Oliver. We appreciate your comment. We appreciate the letter and the works of the Chevalier Commission. This council has also sent a letter to be entered into the public comment period for this issue before the Gaming Commission. I'm gonna go to Ken Krause next, and then we'll come back to you, Ms. Cindy Watson. Ken, I'm gonna unmute you right now. Please give us your name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Krauss. And I think you don't need a big legal team to look at the organizational chart and see when it says Wynn Resorts and then East of Broadway and then Encore Wynn Casino, that it's all part of one company. Any further discussion by members of the council? Motion councilor Knight to approve, seconded by Councilor Collins. Yes, Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: the line item for counsel for legal services in the law department. Yeah, but that's the, there's no KP law budget. It's the line item for legal services in that.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion by members of the public?
[Zac Bears]: So, thank you. Thank you, Cindy. On the motion of Councilor Caraviello seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the role.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I move to resume the negative. The motion passes as amended. Mr. President, motion to take papers under suspension. Papers under suspension. Which paper is that? Motion by Councilor Caraviello to take paper 22-079. Seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70% of the negative papers taken off the, from under suspension. 22-079 offered under suspension by Councilor Caraviello. Being so resolved that the Medford City Council and the Mayor's Office immediately send the City Engineer slash DPW Director to East Border Circle to address repairs that need to be done in the interest of public safety. Being further resolved that DPW come up with an emergency plan to address the major pothole problem within our city. Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Seconded by Councilor Ntuk. Any further discussion by members of the council? Discussion by members of the public, feel free to come to the podium.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Gasolini. Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 from observe the negative motion passes. Reports of committees, 20-078 February 2022 committee of the whole report to follow. This committee of the whole report was on the polystyrene container ordinance. We had a good discussion on that. We had some questions, the economic development director and the office of planning development and sustainability will be reaching out to businesses. And I think hopefully we'll come back in committee of the whole in the next several weeks and get to a good agreement that satisfies all parties involved. On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Tseng to approve the committee report. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, zero negative, the motion passes. 20-568, February 9th, 2022 Committee of the Whole report. This was regarding the Community Development Board's recommendations regarding our zoning ordinance. In just two meetings, we were able to get through the 71 recommendations offered by the Community Development Board. Those recommendations and amendments are being compiled into a final draft, which we should have in the month of March for the council to consider the final approval of our zoning recodification. On the motion of apparently Councilor Knight, second, seconded by Councilor carb yellow to approve the committee of the whole report. Mr. Burke please follow the role.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Vice President Bears. Yes, 74-0, the negative motion passes. Public participation. To participate remotely outside of Zoom reads, please email ahertabase at medford-ma.gov. John J. Petrella, 61 Windsor Road, number 220, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155. John J. Petrella would like the following to be put on the next city council agenda. 22-058, 22-059, Senate Bill S1579, House Bill H2418, 22-062, 22-063, 22-064, 22-065, 22-066. These items certainly, I assume these are to be discussed, but they have been proceeded with and dispensed with pertaining to the rules of this council. Mr. Petrarola, if you'd like to speak.
[Zac Bears]: Certainly reflects the opinion of the Medford City Council.
[Zac Bears]: as elected by the majority of the voters of the city.
[Zac Bears]: Well, we represent the entire city of Medford and all of its residents.
[Zac Bears]: That's how democracy works, yes.
[Zac Bears]: You said you were confused, sir.
[Zac Bears]: Well, subject, if I may, you know, the way that the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts works, and I'm happy to get into it into a dialogue about it. All of the powers delegated to cities and towns, municipalities in the Commonwealth are delegated by the Massachusetts Constitution, and subject to the Massachusetts general laws. So as you know, the city charter of Medford is pursuant to Massachusetts general law, chapter 43. So, you know, this city and all of its powers are directly related to the laws and, and other regulations of the Commonwealth, you know, without the, you know, the powers of this city are dictated by the state. If we want to adjust those powers or request changes to those powers or otherwise ask the state to take action that supports the city of Menford, that's what we would be doing in those cases. For example, you mentioned the electrification of buses. We have many MBTA bus routes spewing pollution throughout the community. Therefore, we may request of the state that they make changes to those things. For example, I think you referenced House Bill S1579H2418, which if I remember correctly is Safe Communities Act, you know, that would reflect on the many residents of this community who may otherwise be engaging with state and local authorities. We also discussed something on pilots, which is about the city's home rule authority to regulate large tax exempt institutions. So, you know, it is the business of this city to advocate for what we believe is the best possible state legal framework that would allow us to represent the citizens of Medford.
[Zac Bears]: Well, we would hope so.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it carries weight. We would hope so, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Well, we don't know why the legislators make specific decisions that they make, but we hope that when they do, they consider the opinions of this council.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, actually Councilor Collins and then Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Collins. And then, sorry, okay, Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: There were also several judgments against the city for a number of pretty standard issues with roads and sidewalks as far as I could tell, but I don't have that number off the top of my head.
[Zac Bears]: And Mr. Protello, I believe that you could contact the city solicitor and ask.
[Zac Bears]: They may or may not, yeah. It's currently with the Department of Labor Relations, if I understand the process correctly.
[Zac Bears]: I don't believe that title is accurate. I believe the title was Chief People Officer, and Chief People Person may have become colloquialism. I do believe there's a paper pending before this Council on the table waiting a legal opinion that would create a position of human resources director, which I believe is what the title has been adjusted to, which would direct the Department of Human Resources.
[Zac Bears]: It's currently on the table awaiting a legal opinion.
[Zac Bears]: Therein lies the rub, my friend. The council has funded the position in several budgets. However, amendments to the personal ordinance have not been made, and that is subject of an ongoing dispute within the council and between the council and the mayor. I think that's a fair characterization.
[Zac Bears]: We approved the budget that included the position, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Any further members of the public who would like to participate? Seeing none, we will go to the records. The records of the February 8th meeting, 2022 meeting were passed to Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Caraviello, I had one amendment to those records, if you don't mind. It was at the end of the meeting, I have to pull it up directly, but essentially it was, I believe I verbally said it was a motion of Councilor Morell, seconded by Councilor Knight to reconsider. It should have been a motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by President Morell. That was my misspeaking at the podium. So if the records could reflect that.
[Zac Bears]: She was not. Sorry, there was a motion to approve as amended. Thank you. Seconded by Councilor Knight Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, zero negative motion passes. Is there a motion to adjourn? Motion adjourned. Motion adjourned by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 from reserve and the negative motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Six regular meeting February 2022 is now called the order, Mr. Clerk, please call the role.
[Zac Bears]: Hearings 22-037, City of Medford, notice of a public hearing. The Medford City Council will hold a continued public hearing in the Howard F. Alden Chambers at Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, and via Zoom on Tuesday, February 8th, 2022 at 7 p.m. on a petition from Orville Anabazi of OBE's Auto Service to operate an automotive repair and auto body shop class four license at 38 Harvard Avenue, Medford MA 02155 in a commercial one zoning district. A Zoom link for this meeting will be posted no later than February 4th, 2022. Petition and plan may be seen in the office of the City Clerk, Medford City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts. Call 781-393-2425 for any accommodations and aids. TDD 781-393-2516. The City of Medford is an equal opportunity employer. By order of the Medford City Council, Adam Hurtubise, City Clerk. Do I see Mr. Abbasi? Is it here in person? Wonderful. I believe where we left this off was there was a question as to whether this was an allowed use under the special permit. And I believe Councilor Knight has had some communications with city staff regarding that. Councilor Knight. I think you believe wrong. I believe wrong.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk, have you received any correspondence regarding this matter?
[Zac Bears]: All right. Well, in that case, Chair of Licensing, do you have a recommendation?
[Zac Bears]: I'm comfortable with that. Is that a motion?
[Zac Bears]: They're not on, they're not on right now. The chief of staff isn't on either? I do not see, well the chief of staff isn't on either.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Schaffer at the table.
[Zac Bears]: What? To continue public hearing, yes. The motion to continue the public hearing.
[Zac Bears]: All right, so the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to continue the public hearing. We may take this up again at this meeting. Seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 permits to the negative. The hearing is continued. 22-063 offered by Council night. It's a result of the Medford City Council extended steep and sincere consult condolences to the family of Frank Palmisano on his recent past Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. If you don't mind if you could move the microphone a little closer to your mouth, we're having some issues hearing you with the air. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Any further comments from the council or members of the public? Mr. Castagnetti, name and address for the record, please. It isn't quite yet. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Peace. Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. On the motion of Councilor Knight and Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Suspension of the rules to take paper 22-073 communications for the mayor by Councilor carb yellow seconded by seconded by Councilor Collins, Mr. Clark, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, yes 70 affirmative zero and the negative. We've taken paper 22-073 which I'll now read 22-073 February 4 2022 by electronic delivery to the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council City Hall Medford Massachusetts 02155. Regarding Home Rule Petition Charter Commission, dear President Morell and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that your Honorable Body approve the following Home Rule Petition and transmit to the General Court for their consideration. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. The Home Rule Petition is the following, an act authorizing the election of a Charter Commission in the City of Medford. being enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives and general court assembled and by the authority of the same as follows. Section one, notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 43B of the general laws or any provisions of any general law, special law or regulation to the contrary, the city of Medford City Council shall at the first regular city election or earlier occurring special election held on or after the 60th day following the effective date of this act by order provided for the election of a nine member charter commission. Section two, the charter commission shall be composed of one commissioner elected from each of the eight wards of the city and one elected at large. In the event a charter commissioner elected to represent a particular ward should move within the city during their term of office, they may continue to serve as the representative from the ward from which they were elected. The vacancy created by any commissioner who moves from the city during their term of office or who resigns may be filled by a majority vote of the entire commission. other than section three other than as set forth here in the provisions of chapter 43b of the general law shall be applicable to the nomination and election of the charter commissioners and to the duties and responsibilities of the city and the charter commission elected here under section four this act shall take effect upon its passage and just to be clear the section two regarding eight one commissioner elected from each of the eight words and one elected at largest for the Charter Commission, not that would not be for anything else just for the Charter Commission, that would be allowed by this whole petition. Any Councilors? Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: That's an amendment from Councilor Caraviello, so that any vacancy on the charter commission would be filled by the person who received the next most votes in the election to that commission.
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Any further comments from members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: That's the motion, please. So motion by Councilor Scarpelli to refer this to committee of the whole seconded by seconded by Councilor Knight, further discussion, President Morell, and then Councilor Knight and then Councilor Collins and Councilor Kelly.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, President Morell. Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Is that a request for anything from the city solicitor regarding that? Okay. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Councilor Caraviello then Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. So what I have here, if Councilor Caraviello would be so amenable, we have a motion to refer this to Committee of the Whole to meet with the city administration, you know, residents. And Councilor Caraviello, prior to that, you had an amendment to change it to the person who received the next most votes would fill any vacancy. Would you mind if we discuss that and Councilor Knight's discussion on Chapter 43B at the Committee of the Whole? Great, so that's the motion. I'm seeing Chief of Staff Nina Nazarian, and then at this point, seeing no other comments from Councilors, if members of the public would like to line up here or raise their hands on Zoom for comment. But first, Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: It's a little bold. We did have them here in our meeting earlier tonight, all due respect, and we are trying to work collaboratively on this. So that's the spirit in which I've been trying to schedule with Council President Morell, anything that we're doing. Continue, Madam Chair.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. If Mr. Carroll's here, if folks who would like to speak, if folks are on Zoom and they would like to speak, if you could please use the raise hand function and I will recognize you. First, I'll recognize Mr. Carroll. If you could just give us your name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Carroll. Milva McDonald, I'll unmute your name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Milva. Any other comments from members of the public? Well, I see Madam Mayor, Breanna Lungo-Koehn.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I see Sheila. I will unmute you if you could give us your name and your address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: You may need to mute your television. work that out. I'm going to go next to Eileen Lerner. Name and address for the record, please, Eileen.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Eileen. Next, I'm going to go to Steve Schnapp. Steve, if you could give us your name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Schnapp. I'm going to go back to Sheila. We'll see, see how it works. Sheila name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Sheila. Next, we'll go to David Walker. David, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, David. Any other members of the public who would like to speak on this topic? Seeing none, any other comments from councilors? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank y'all for saying there's one more member of the public, Marie Izzo, please give your name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing no other public comment, the motion on the floor from Councilor Scarpelli to refer this to Committee of the Whole, where we will discuss the question of how vacancies will be replaced, as well as any conflicts with Chapter 43B of Massachusetts General Law. That motion to send to Committee of the Whole by Councilor Scarpelli is seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 70 from a zero to negative that item is referred to committee of the whole.
[Zac Bears]: Right, right.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, yep. Mr. Abbasi, name and address for the record. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Just if I may, I understand your frustration. This is a process issue. We believe it's on our end internally. It's not you. Nothing to do with you at all. I think this council, you know, We're gonna, we're gonna move this forward legally as quickly as we possibly can.
[Zac Bears]: What we're gonna work to do, Mr. Abbasi, if I may, Councilors, what we're gonna do to work, Mr. Bosley is we're gonna try to get an answer from the city administration to this council by Friday. When we have that answer was submitted to you. And when we submit that answer, you will also let you know if it's necessary for you to appear again. Probably, it seems like this is a technical error. We will get that information, we will get the answer that we need, and then we'll tell you, we will vote on it on Tuesday, you don't need to testify, you don't need to be here. I apologize for the delay.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it is the universal discrimination of government, and it's slow processes, and I apologize for that. Thank you. Sure. Just give us your name and address please.
[Zac Bears]: We want to be friends. We understand this is life and death to people. This is about their daily lives and their ability to work. Yes, sir.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes. Have a good evening. Thank you. And thank you. Is there a motion on the floor right now? We are a motion to revert back to the regular order of business by Councilor Caraviello seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Collins, Mr. Clerk on the motion, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative one absent motion passes, let me get back to our order of business. 22-064 offered by Councilor Knight. Be it so resolved that the acting DPW commissioner report back to the council on whether the salt mix used by the city is pet friendly. Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: About the response or the solvent? About the solvent. On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by- Mr. President, if I could. Yes, Council President Morell.
[Zac Bears]: I personally think the solution should be that we should buy little boots for all the pets, but that's just me. Any further discussion on the motion? On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, six in the affirmative one absent the motion passes 22-065 offered by Councilor Knight. The answer was that the Medford City solicitor provided the council with the draft ordinance establishing a youth commission as requested by a vote of the council in April 2021. Councilor Knight. Did you say youth? Youth, youth, youth, youth.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Young environmentalist.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng any further discussion. On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Caraviello, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: This is the Youth Commission.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 from resume the negative the motion passes 22-066 offered by President morale, be it so resolved that the Medford City Council request that the administration deploy temporary signage as needed, noting so emergency parking procedures throughout the city, President morale.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, President morale, any further discussion, Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: Just before we go to Councilor Collins, I just want to add, you can actually fill out a form on the city website to automatically sign up for those alerts. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just as one councillor, this language is pretty open. I was actually thinking when this was going up, it would be more like when we had the Craddock Bridge project, You know, the traffic sign that said go here, go there, go everywhere for a while. And in addition, you know, we have these super boards and major squares, those could go up, those are, you know, tall and generally at least most of the time over the height of the Yeah, you know, the billboards as well. So, cause I do, I do think there's a gap where new residents, you know, don't know the procedures of the rules. And the real issue that I've seen is that, you know, we have a lot of signage on most of our streets. This is not one of the things that's signed on those streets. So if someone parks on the street, then they look up at the sign next to their street, this isn't on there. So that's kind of, you know, and I'm not saying we should go replace 10,000 signs on every block. Cause we know that what kind of project that would be. But if we get some temporary solutions in, and then maybe as well, going forward, if we're redoing a street, look at the signage on that street. That might help. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, temporarily, generally explore temporary and permanent solutions to close communication gaps regarding snow emergencies. President Morales that amendment acceptable.
[Zac Bears]: Here's a riddle for you, Councilor Knight. If it's December 2020, is it even parking lot? Even, December, even. Is it?
[Zac Bears]: I live on a DCR. I live on a DCR.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. And you know, if anyone from DCR is listening, please turn your plows to the left on Fells Way West. We're going east on Fells Way West, turn your plows to the left. You know, just right between 621 and 629, that would be. Councilor Caraviello? Oh, it looks like Miss Catalo. Actually, Mr. Castagnetti first, then we'll go to Miss Catalo. Mr. Castagnetti.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Cassidetti. Kelly Catala, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing no further discussion on the motion of President Morell, seconded by Councilor Tseng, as amended by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yes, 70 from the negative the motion passes 22-067 offer by President morale being so resolved that the Medford City Council send a letter to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission chair Kathy Judd Stein calling for the rejection of the proposed 1800 seat entertainment venue connection to the on court casino President morale.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, President Morell. Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: I think that's gone so emotionally Council Collins to approve second by. Yes, Councilor Knight second by Councilor councilor night.
[Zac Bears]: Where are we with that? We have not received to my knowledge, unless the clerk has information otherwise, an appropriation request from the mayor's office.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, that may be possible. And I say, we can't do it on our own.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. On the matter of the appropriation, I don't think anyone in this, well, I'll speak for myself. I was certainly not opposed to adding money to that pot, but I just believe procedurally, if it was gonna come before us, it has to come from the mayor as an appropriation. If she can do it herself, that's another matter, but I certainly know we can't initiate that process. She seems to have stepped out. On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Caraviello to approve, Any other discussion. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: 22-068 offered by Councilor Tseng be resolved that the Metro City Council as the city of City Administration and the Office of Planning, Sustainability, and Development to study and reach out to potential locations for public art projects like murals and to publish these locations on the city website. These locations should also keep in mind potential problems of equity, gentrification, and access. Be it further resolved that the Medford City Council asks the City Administration and the Office of Planning, Sustainability, and Development to create online and physical forms where members of the community and business owners can express their interest in taking part in public arts projects. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Knight. Any further discussion? Oh, Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: You said you could say thank you.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, no. As an artist, I believe he meant.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Knight, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Bears. Thank you, Mr. President. Whereas this would be an amendment to the marijuana zoning ordinance, my preference here, the intent of this ordinance is to ensure that both the construction and staffing of marijuana establishments here in our community, whether they are dispensaries or they are, you know, many of the other variety of marijuana companies that may come here are providing good union jobs that are providing good wages to the people of our community. And, you know, whereas this was a change to our zoning, I would like to motion to join this with paper 20-568 and refer it to committee of the whole to get information, you know, discuss this maybe after we discuss the community development board recommendations tomorrow, to discuss this with attorney Dabrowski and see if this is a potential way forward to ensure labor, supportive labor in the marijuana industry here in Medford. And I also know after discussion with my fellow Councilors, there is Mr. Gabriel Camacho, representative of UFCW Local 1445 is with us on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: The provisions were, I can't speak for the UFCW, maybe if they, if Mr. Camacho is on the line, if he could discuss whether this came from council or not, I would like to have it reviewed by, at least by Attorney Bobrowski as well, just to, you know, I think our marijuana ordinance with the zoning ordinance piece and also the separate Cannabis Advisory Committee piece, you know, it may be a unique structure compared to other communities. So is Mr. Camacho on the line?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Knight. Yeah, and you know, I really want to thank Mr. Camacho and UFCW Local 1445. I know that I have some friends who have worked in the industry. Their place of employment was able to unionize with UFCW Local 1445 and they have a much improved standard of working conditions and they're much happier in their positions. So my hope is that we can make sure that is how the industry works here in Medford as well. with Councilor Nides second, you know, happy to move forward.
[Zac Bears]: For sure. And I'm hoping that Attorney Brasco will review it as well as Solicitor Stantlin.
[Zac Bears]: I would have no issue with the future motion to sever this. I just felt, you know, given that I feel like it's- Right, given that it's in the spirit of the council, given that we're already having the meeting with the attorney and given that, you know, we have the ability to amend the resolution.
[Zac Bears]: Well, my motion was to join it with paper 20-568, which is- Which one is that? That's the paper we're using for zoning recodification. So my motion was to send this to committee of the whole and join it with 20-568.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I mean, to be honest, to be frank, I think, I think, I think, given, given the paper, I mean, to be honest. given that it's an amendment to the zoning ordinance, I would feel comfortable bringing the text tomorrow night to discuss under the zoning. So if we refer it to committee, the whole, you know, I would, I was putting this on so we could have a discussion tonight and have it in open council and also have the ability to separate in the future. But I also think it's, it is an amendment to the zoning ordinance where tomorrow night we're discussing amendments to the zoning ordinance. We haven't, you know, For example, when we were doing committees of the whole in last year, we weren't saying we're only discussing this section tonight and this section tonight and this section tonight. It was the full zoning ordinance. So, you know, that's, I'm not trying to, I'm not trying to get around anything here.
[Zac Bears]: If I may, if we were to, you know, if we were to review the meeting notice for tomorrow evening, let's say paper 20-568 zoning recodification, you know, and reviewing amendments to the zoning ordinance, I think that this would fall under that, that posting. So, you know, I'm happy to refer to Committee of the Whole, not join it with the other paper. If we want to have another meeting on in the future. I'm still going to bring it up tomorrow night, whether or not you know that that's just what I'm going to do in the committee the whole meeting either way.
[Zac Bears]: That's fine. That's coming up.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, no motion to join. Just motion to send this to Committee of the Whole as it is.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, yeah, I mean.
[Zac Bears]: Well, so, okay, here's my question. To be honest, my goal here was not to have an entirely separate committee, the whole meeting, because it's one amendment in the context of many amendments. I don't think it needs an hour and a half of a meeting. So I'm happy to refer it, either to keep it, table it here, pending a legal opinion, and then we can discuss it when the public hearing reopens on the zoning recodification. I'm happy to refer it to committee of the whole, and then have it, you know, I'm in a motion to accept your amendment to have a legal opinion and then table it on the council agenda pending that legal opinion.
[Zac Bears]: My question would be that we ask that the city solicitor and attorney Bobrowski both render an opinion as to whether this is permissible under Massachusetts zoning laws. And then secondly, if you know what you were saying Councilor Caraviello a motion to have a legal opinion from the city solicitor as to whether this affects ongoing negotiations with applicants to the city.
[Zac Bears]: And again my one second.
[Zac Bears]: Right, and again, the intent here is this would apply- And again, I don't have a problem supporting it, just- No, I know.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanna be clear, the reason that I put it under the zoning ordinance is because that's referring to host community agreements. Right now, there's only one host community agreement being negotiated, so it may apply to the dispensaries. But the other thing here is that this could apply to the non-dispensary projects, which there are many marijuana businesses that we are allowing I believe, at least under a less restrictive process than the dispensary process.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to table.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. These bills are all on a similar topic which is the accountability of large tax exempt institutions to municipalities here in the Commonwealth. The first bill is H3080 and S1874 are regarding allowing local municipalities to set up a regulatory framework and require that large tax exempt institutions with values over $15 million excluding religious institutions can be required to pay up to 25% of what they would otherwise pay in property taxes. The second bill H 3803 would have, I believe the Department of Revenue, study and examine, or maybe the Division of Local Services, examine how much municipal tax revenue is lost every year to large tax exempt institutions. And the third bill is something this council has already voted through as a home roll petition, but still has not passed due to the objection of ACUM and the private college and university lobby, which is requiring an institutional master plan from Tufts University. So these three bills, again, I believe all three of them survive joint roll 10 day and have extensions in their committees. So it would be great if, the state would allow us to over the objections of these, you know, very high paid lobbyists for these large private institutions allow cities and towns to adequately plan for and regulate and cooperate and collaborate with large tax exempt institutions, like large universities and hospital systems. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: This William you know I hadn't actually thought about this way before but the way that this is structured it would be a maximum 25% on what they would otherwise pay in property taxes. Now, looking at the city's, you know, tax classification that's probably less than what the display is between land and buildings, but it is kind of similarly.
[Zac Bears]: If they let us do our job, I wouldn't be filing these resolutions.
[Zac Bears]: I remember probably like my third meeting. I tried to vote present on something. I got, I got told I couldn't. 22-071 offered by Councilor Collins, whereas the Governor's fiscal year 2023 state budget proposal includes a 2.7% increase in unrestricted general government aid, and whereas this modest increase in local aid is disproportionate to the dramatic forecasted increase in 2023 state tax collections, 22% increase from original FY22 base and 7.3% increase from calculation of base used to create the FY22 budget. And whereas municipalities such as ours rely on state revenue sharing to balance local budgets and fund essential services, and as we contend with the ongoing pandemic recovery in the midst of economic inflation, these resources are needed as acutely as ever. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council express its support for a higher level of unrestricted general government aid in the fiscal year 2023 state budget. Be it further resolved that the city clerk forward a copy of this resolution to the Medford legislative delegation as well as Senate President Spoka and House Speaker Mariano, Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: I like voting last. 22-072 offered by councilor Collins. Whereas in February, 2020, the Medford city council, Medford school committee and mayor pledged to make our city hunger free by 2028. And whereas the pandemic conditions of the past two years has exacerbated hunger and food insecurity in Medford as in surrounding communities. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council reaffirm the pledge to make our city hunger-free by 2028. Be it further resolved that the Medford City Council express support for expanding the city's capacity to address food insecurity, development of convenient and affordable food sources throughout Medford, and targeting our pandemic recovery resources towards ensuring that our community's basic needs are met. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On a motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven in the affirmative or one in the, none in the negative, the motion passes. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, I have a paper that's related to that requesting a legal opinion.
[Zac Bears]: On that motion, Mr. Clerk, please spell the roll.
[Zac Bears]: We will take it up after this paper.
[Zac Bears]: This is to take off the table of papers 21-631, 21-631, and 22-023 by Councilor Collins. Is there a second?
[Zac Bears]: Second from President Moran. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Payne. Yes. Five in favor of the negative the motion passes. Paper 21-631 was passed by this council for first reading on December 21st, 2021, in regards to the positions of the administrative support for COVID-19, the COVID-19 public information officer, the federal funds manager, and parts of amendments L and M. which I believe were for amendment L, the data analyst and the contact. And for amendment M, the emergency preparedness coordinator, I believe. Yes, Councilor Caraviello. We have a- We can look at that paper after we look at these papers.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. On the paper, 21-631, personnel ordinance amendments K and O and parts amendments L and M. Is there a motion on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve from President Morell. Seconded by?
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Collins. Any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Ordinance is required five votes pursuant to what? State general law. Which chapter, section?
[Zac Bears]: All right, we're gonna take a minute to look at this.
[Zac Bears]: Well, they were passed for first reading, so.
[Zac Bears]: We don't have a specific chapter or section.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. My ruling is that it's an order with four votes, so unless there's a motion to count, my ruling is to chair. I'm happy to review this before we do that, though, if folks would indulge me.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'm just going to, you know, considering that I don't have the specific citation and I don't want to delay the proceedings, the ruling of the chair is that the vote- Would we not want to err on the side of caution, considering we've taken an oath? Well, considering that this council, you know, worked in good faith to delay for a week and now have a motion under suspension. Perpetuating further delay, I'd like to vote. Waste makes waste. We move forward with the vote, Mr. please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, for the affirmative, three in the negative motion passes. 21-631, personal ordinance amendments FIJ and parts of amendment L and M. Motion of council, I do question the role of the chair as to whether the amendment passes. Seconded by. Second. Seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, President Morell.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, Madam Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Knight to challenge the ruling of the chair, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, five in the affirmative, two in the negative. The chair is overruled. My reason, as Councilor Morell, if the sponsor of the paper does not want to move forward, then I'm comfortable keeping this or reverting, you know, if there's a motion to put these back on the table.
[Zac Bears]: So no, I certainly would have appreciated that to be brought up on the previous resolution. I'm not the chair. You are, man. I'm not the chair. I understand. It happened.
[Zac Bears]: What do you want me to do?
[Zac Bears]: It was just over the vote challenge. There's no vote. So the item remains on the agenda. The ruling of the chair was overturned and the vote was not in the affirmative. Is there a motion on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: No, we voted on nothing. The chair was incorrect. Is there a motion on the floor regarding these items? Motion to table items 21-631, 21-631, and 22-023 by Councilor Knight. Seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Motion to table all three, they were taken off the table and I motion to put them back on the table.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm gonna affirm a zero and a negative, the motions are tabled. Councilor Caraviello? Mr. Clerk, I mean, Mr. Councilor Caraviello, you're free to file that as an item on the agenda next week.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to reconsider paper 21-61 by Councilor Morell, seconded by? Second. Seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in favor, zero negative. The motion is back on the table. Are there any motions regarding paper 21-61? Motion to retail motion to table by Councilor Knight seconded by second seconded by Councilor Collins Mr. please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, the affirmative, the negative, the motion is tabled. Reports of committees, paper 22-043, February 1st, Committee of the Whole report. This was regarding the council priorities. Any discussion? Motion approved, Councilor Caraviello, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean, the negative motion passes. 20-568, February 2nd, 2022 Committee of the Whole report to follow. This was a Committee of the Whole regarding the zoning recodification with attorney Mark Hrabowski. And we are meeting tomorrow at 5 p.m. to continue the discussion on amendments to the zoning ordinance of the city of Medford. Motion to approve. Motion to approve, Councilor Caraviello, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Caraviello?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in favor of the negative motion passes. Public participation. Council President Morell has let me know that Mr. John Petrella is not available tonight. Council President Morell, is there any, did he have a request for his paper?
[Zac Bears]: All right, then, any other business before the council? Present. Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Any further business? Records. Records were passed to me. The chair finds the records in order and moves approval. On the motion of myself, seconded by Councilor Knight, or the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by me, I'm not really sure. Mr. Clerk.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm going to confirm as soon as the negative motion passes. Motion adjourned by Councilor Caraviello seconded by seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clark, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Motion passes meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. While we're under suspension, can we take communications from the mayor? Paper 22068.
[Zac Bears]: And Mr. President, I see Chief Friedman is here on Zoom with us.
[Zac Bears]: I second Councilor Knight's motion to approve.
[Zac Bears]: We may have someone on the line.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. The resolution is relatively self-explanatory, but just to to explain what a community control over public surveillance ordinance is, that ordinance would create a public process where if any part of the city wanted to implement surveillance technologies, that they would just have to be approved through a public process approved by this city council. So the motion is to consider such an ordinance in the public health and community safety subcommittee, and I defer to my co-sponsor, Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be brief. I just wanted to add that I think it's important to add our voice to this chorus. Anyone familiar with the State House knows that it is joint rule 10 week, which means it's the last week, unless extensions are requested for bills to be reported out of their committees to be considered this session. And as everyone has said, all the reasons that this is incredibly important. And there's a really broad coalition of folks from, you know, progressive legislators and I believe all four of our legislative delegation to the police chiefs who would find this to be incredibly valuable as well. So I'm glad we're taking this up.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President? I saw actually I'll defer to President Morell.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, and that's exactly what I was going to say. I just want to add, um, that while some of the efforts of by the council and our legislators were for a time effective at making sure that idling and bright lights and loud noises were not occurring late night. Over at the Fellsway bus yard in Haines Square. That problem has recurred. I have been working with the city clerk to contact representatives at the MBTA And I also know that Representative Paul Donato and Mayor Lungo-Koehn have also been trying to work with the MBTA to make it so that we don't have 75 diesel buses idling at 11pm with bright floodlights. It's creating pretty serious impacts on the surrounding community in Haines Square. So hopefully, obviously this would address it in the long term, also hoping that we can address it in the short term. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Just Mr. President, if I may. Thank you to Councilor nice point. You know, I was looking at the fiscal 23 cherry sheet, which is the basically proposed inflows and outflows of state money into the city. And our MBTA assessment was just over $4 million. But we are sending over $9 million a year out of this community to fund private charter schools, you know, and only getting $1 million back. definitely also agree about the issues with chapter 90 being level funded and local aid being, you know, two and a half percent again. So there's a lot of things that need to be fixed, but certainly I think we can all on this council agree that addressing the charter school funding formula, which is draining, you know, a huge chunk of our city revenue would be a priority as well.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, and, uh, in a moment, if my fellow Councilor would be so amenable to an amendment, I will propose one. But, um, you know, I think especially at this moment in time, as we're seeing the banning of books, the banning of thought, the banning of debate, intentionally put forward across this country and in media to constrict and define our history in a way that is untruthful. I think it's important for us, as a place that doesn't do that, to make it very loud and clear why we don't do that. Because that's a very dangerous and corrosive ideology that's spreading and moving through our society. So just to be more specific in this resolution, I'd like to amend the resolution to put a comma after the phrase to combat racism and then replace the words and white supremacy with the following phrase. Mr. Clerk, let me know when you're ready. It looks like a ready. And the phrase is to address the growing danger of white supremacy and white supremacist ideology as well publicized by the United States Department of Justice, Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti-Defamation League, and other leading watchdogs, comma. And I put forward that amendment hopefully with the support of the sponsor. just to be specific about what's happening right now and why it's important for us to speak out about the true reality of what's happened and also where we need to go.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, any further discussion? Mr. President, if I may just add to Councilor Knight's point, that there is a job posting for that position. So to anyone here or anyone watching tonight, please spread that job posting for the diversity director far and wide. I do think it is urgent that we get someone hired and I'm hopeful that that will happen quickly.
[Zac Bears]: Happy to second the motion. And just one small amendment, if the city administration could also consider disaggregation of Middle Eastern and North African identities. That's one, basically, several censuses ago, the census decided that if you're from North Africa or the Middle East, you're white. And that has presented a huge issue in terms of data collection and disaggregation. So just if I could add that small friendly amendment to this.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Third reading for the personnel ordinances.
[Zac Bears]: The first paper is the positions including the federal funds manager that we approved under the prior council in December.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: I'm of the opinion that waiting one additional week would not be the city and moving these forward. So I'm happy to wait one more week and take these off the table at that time.
[Zac Bears]: That would be the Subcommittee on Climate, Sustainability, and Transportation.
[Zac Bears]: You're all right. I would just if, if Councilor Knight would be so amenable to amend this to include that minutes be posted, even if the meetings are occurring in person.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Definitely support the intent of this. If the Councilor would be so amenable to refer this to the committee on rules and ordinances I think we could have the discussion in there by the end of February and get this set up.
[Zac Bears]: Then I would move to refer to that committee on ordinances and rules.
[Zac Bears]: the subcommittee on ordinances and rules.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think Councilor Collins made a good statement. Every city vehicle should be a safe vehicle. And I would just like to, if folks are comfortable with this as an amendment, just ask, there's been a shift. I remember when I was younger, we actually had patrol cars. They were cars and now we've moved more to SUVs. And I just would like to amend this to ask going forward, if the plan is to continue with SUV size vehicles and ask why that is.
[Zac Bears]: Not eligible next week.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, if I may. Just before we consider the records. Just wanted to let everybody know that I'm on zoom because I tested positive for COVID-19. It is no fun. I am fully vaccinated and boosted, and it still is not fun was. taking precautions, wearing masks everywhere, not going in big crowds. So just wanted to put out a point of note that, you know, the virus is still out there spreading widely. I'm still not sure how I got it. I've talked to all my close contacts and they're all negative and asymptomatic. So, you know, it's out there. And as I said, it's no fun. And I tested positive on a rapid test and just want to make a point that if you test positive on a rapid test in Medford, let the board of health know. You can email them through the city website email our public health nurse Sarah Harris, and it just helps to keep the statistics up. So, just wanted to let you guys know I already let all the Councilors know and the staff that I was around last week, but I just wanted to put that message out there. I'm really glad that I'm vaccinated and boosted otherwise I think I would feel a lot worse, and I hope to be back with you in a couple weeks in the chamber. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: The reading of the Medford City Council January 2022 is now called to order, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. I split it up there.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes. I mean, the affirmative zero and the negative. The motion is passed and the rules are suspended. Paper 2240. Can we... Motion to take up papers 20 to 040 and 20 to 047. Is that a motion to join. Seconded by second, seconded by a motion by Councilor Scarpelli seconded by Councilor carb yellow. Mr. Please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Ferris. Yes, 70 affirmative, zero in the negative, motion passes. 22-040 offered by Councilor Knight, be it so resolved that the city solicitor appear before the council in executive session for the purpose of discussing impending litigation relative to permit denial for BJ's wholesale. And 22-047 offered by Councilor Caraviello, be it resolved that the Medford City Council ask Solicitor Scanlon to attend the meeting on Tuesday to brief the council on the matter of BJ's permit and where it stands at this point. Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Executive session was listed as a topic for discussion on this meeting notice, including detail about the purpose for the executive session. We have convenient open session. I am publicly announcing the purpose of our executive session is to cite purpose three, to discuss strategy with respect to litigation. And the specific purpose is the ongoing case of BJ's Wholesale Club versus Metro City Council. We will reconvene an open session after the executive session. Mr. Clerk, on the motion to enter executive session by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Caraviello, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: vice president bears. Yes. I've been the affirmative zero and the negative motion passes. We will be entering executive session. If you're viewing online, please bear with us. So we will be away for a few minutes. All right. Hi everybody. Motion to revert to the regular, well, just before we do that, just FYI to anybody who is currently on Zoom, we're having issues with the TV broadcast, so we will be broadcasting on Zoom and a recording of the meeting will be posted on Medford Community Media, but the TV feed is currently not working. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to revert to the regular order of business, seconded by Councilor Caraviello, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. 22.024, petition for grant of location, National Grid, North Andover, Massachusetts. Location of poles, wires, and fixtures. You are hereby notified that the Medford City Council will hold a public hearing in the Howard F. Alden Chambers at Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, and via Zoom. on Tuesday, January 18th, 2022, a link to be posted no later than Friday, January 14th, 2022, on a petition of Massachusetts Electrical Company, DBA National Grid, and Verizon New England for permission to locate. Motion to waive the reading for a brief synopsis by the applicant by Councilor Knight, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. So many affirmatives here in the negative motion passes. I opened the hearing first, right?
[Zac Bears]: I see Mr. Ortiz in favor of the position. Is there anyone else in favor of the petition? This portion of the hearing is now closed. Is there anyone in opposition to the petition? Seeing none, this portion of the hearing is now closed. Mr. Ortiz, if you could give us a brief synopsis of the project.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Cronus, the clerk is also reminding me that the clerk's office will notify our monitors as well.
[Zac Bears]: On Councilor Nait's motion to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Caraviello. I don't believe I have anything on this, so. Oh, just on the, Mr. Ortiz, it was requested by the council that you provide a report back to us on double poles. Would it be possible for you to send a written report to our city clerk's office on that matter?
[Zac Bears]: If you email it to the city clerk and the superintendent of wires, that would be sufficient. Okay, sounds good. You can give a phone call to, if you have a pen, I can give you a phone number to call in the morning.
[Zac Bears]: It's a 781-393-2425. Thank you very much. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Caraviello to approve this petition. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. So any affirmative and the negative, the petition is approved.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. motions orders and resolutions 22 to 038 offered by Councilor Knight, it's a result of Medford City Council congratulate former Metro Police Detective Michael holding on his recent retirement as chief of the Western Police Department Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, thank you, Councilor Campbell. Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Knight to approve, seconded by Councilor Caraviello-Viello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, seven affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. 22-039 offered by Councilor Knight, whereas Council Paper 20-328, Progress Report on Requested Draft Ordinances, has gone unanswered. Be it so resolved that the City Solicitor direct the outsourced legal counsel to provide the council with Draft ordinances on the following matters approved by the council during the 2020-2021 term. One, $50 minimum wage for all city and school department employees. Two, sick leave bank for all city and school department employees. Three, city beautification advisory committee, 20-006. Four, housing stability task force, 20-300. Five, affordable housing trust, 20-024. Six, commercial leaf blowers, 21-057. And seven, youth commission, 21-351. Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of councilor Knight to approve as amended by signing them by councilor Caraviello as amended by councilor Knight to place us on the reports due section of the agenda for 30 days, correct? Yes, sir. Any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: President Morell.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Knight seconded by Councilor Gabriella as amended by Councilor Knight and Councilor Morell. Mr. Clerk, please call the role.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, having affirmative zero, the negative motion passes. 22-041, offered by Councilor Knight, be it so resolved that the Medford City Council request that the School Department seek a determination on eligibility for funding from the Community Preservation Committee for the purpose of addressing physical plant requirements to provide hot water to the locker rooms outlined in Council Paper 21-607, and be it so resolved that the City Council request the School Department seek a determination on eligibility for funding from the Community Preservation Committee for the purpose of resurfacing the field of dreams as outlined in council paper 21-606, and be it further resolved that the Medford City Council request the Hormel Commission seek a determination on eligibility for funding from the CPC for the purpose of addressing physical plant requirements regarding hot water in the MHS pool locker rooms as outlined in council paper 21-605. Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Is there any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Farage?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative zero and a negative. The motion passes. 22-042, offered by Councilor Knight. Being so resolved that the city solicitor provide an opinion on the following question, colon, does the contract for the provision of body cameras fall under the requirements and provisions of Massachusetts general law, chapter 30B, section 12. Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Any further discussion? Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. 22-043 offered by President Morell. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council meet in committee of the whole to discuss council priorities for 2022. Councilor Morell.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. This resolution comes after I was able to see a report in the Medford transcript about the efforts of Trees Medford to establish a memorial grove to honor and memorialize the lives of over 100 Medford residents who passed away due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A little over a year ago, I proposed a similar resolution in spirit that the city to have a commission to determine what a memorial may be. So the purpose here is to say that the council asked the administration to support the efforts of Trees Medford and also to report back to us on if they plan to have any sort of commission or other sort of group to figure out what this memorial could look like. Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, in having several discussions with members of the community, you know, folks over at Brooks Estate, folks who utilize our parks, and Mr. Hogan, you know, it's become very clear to me that Mr. Hogan's, the workload on Mr. Hogan is very significant. Many communities have multiple animal control officers here in Medford. We have Patrick Hogan who does an amazing job. We got an email from him earlier this month about what he had done in the year 2021 and I think that was a very impressive amount of work. And then we have one other person who's certified to be an animal control officer who is in the health department but is so overworked with the responsibilities of their job, but they're mostly not able to also assist with animal control. So I think it's worth bringing in our animal control officer to discuss both suggestions or support the council might have to provide additional resources to the office, as well as if there are any potential legal changes or provisions of state law that the city may be able to accept to improve his ability to do his work. Thank you, Mr. President, any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. Motion passes. 22-zero four six offered by councilor Caraviello. Be it resolved that the Medford city council request the mayor and veteran service director engage in talks with the town of Winchester to regionalize their veteran service with our department. Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: Would this come back to us in the future? Would we have to agree to this merger as a council?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Caraviello to refer this paper to the Subcommittee on Military and Veterans Affairs, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Any further discussion? Seeing none, on the motion to refer to the Subcommittee, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: 7 in the affirmative, 0 in the negative. The motion is referred to subcommittee 22-048. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council thank all the people who supported our fight with Encore that hopefully had some influence with wind pulling back on their expansion plans. Councilor Caraviellollo.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Now I can hear. The motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: I think we're blaming Shane.
[Zac Bears]: I know. Oh, do we have papers in committee? We report to committees. Representative committees 22-025, January 12th, 2022. Committee of the whole report. This was on the flooding at high street and Woburn street intersection. Is there a motion? Motion to approve by councilor Knight. Seconded by councilor Cabriello.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Negative motion passes records, records of the meeting of January 11th, 2022 were passed. Councilor Knight, Councilor Knight, how'd you find the record on the motion of Councilor Knight to approve the record seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. Any further business? Any motions on the floor? Motion to adjourn, Councilor Knight, seconded by? Second. Seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean affirmative is there a negative motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Second regular meeting, January 11th, 2022 is now called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Vice President Bears. Present.
[Zac Bears]: Please rise to salute the flag.
[Zac Bears]: Motion for Councilor Knight to suspend the rules, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: All right. 22-032, petition for a common victor license by Ruben Pierre, 44 Norfolk Road, Holbrook, Massachusetts, 02301, for Sunrise Cuisine Incorporated, 285 Middlesex Avenue, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155. Councilor Scarpelli is the chair on licensing. I will give the floor to you.
[Zac Bears]: Any motion to approve by Councilor Scarapelli, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Any questions for the petitioner or for the Chair of Licensing?
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions? Would you like to say anything? All right. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Caraviello, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. Congratulations, Mr. Clerk. Congratulations. 22-033, petition for a conventional license by Muhammad E. Massoud, 40 Doonan Street, Medford, MA, 02155, for Pinky's Famous Pizza, 165 Main Street, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155. Councilor Scarpelli, the floor is yours.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we have him out. Mr. Masood, I'm going to unmute you right now. If you could please give us your name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Motion by Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by? Second. Seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Do any councilors have any questions for the petitioner or for the chair of licensing? Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further questions from the Council? Seeing none, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Caraviello to approve. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. Congratulations, Mr. Matsui.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. 22-022 communication from the mayor to the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council, City Hall. Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, regarding budget amendment. Dear Mr. President and councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that the city council approves the following amendment to the fiscal year 2022 budget. Line item 0101515032, contract legal services, FY22 budgeted amount, $26,600. proposed amended about $81,600 following the passage of the fiscal year 2022 budget by the council I engaged in conversations with Council President Caraviello, City Solicitor Kim Scanlon, and KP Law to develop a process where the council can avail themselves of KP Law's services and counsel as needed. In those discussions, it was agreed that requests for council attendance or advice will be submitted by the council through the council president, who will coordinate with the city solicitor, who will schedule meetings with KP Law to get whatever legal resources are needed to address the council's requests. Respectfully submitted, Brianna Lumgo-Kern, Mayor. This was on the agenda last week. It was postponed for one week on rule 20. I saw Councilor Caraviello and then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: excuse me, we do have a committee of the whole already scheduled for next Tuesday at 5.30. Kim Scanlon will be there. It is regarding the elections commission. So we will have her, we could discuss the process. She is scheduled to be before us on the day.
[Zac Bears]: There's a motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Ntuk-Table. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Actually, the clerk has reminded me that a motion to table is not debatable. I'm still getting up on my council rules. So we will have to vote on that before we have further debate. So, Mr. Clerk, on the motion to table, if you could please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: No, three in the affirmative, four in the negative. The motion is not tabled. Councilor Snider.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any Councilors? Mr. President? Yes, President Morell.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: It was last year, 2021 calendar year.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Any further discussion from members of the council? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, Mr. Councilor Caraviello, if you could start.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any comments from members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: Point of personal privilege on that, Mr. President? Point of personal privilege, Councilor Knights.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Nazarian, if you could answer Councilor Morales' question and Councilor Knights.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. The floor is yours, Chief of Staff Nazarian.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. Councilor and I did have a question as well. We had requested that KP Law help draft an ordinance for a $15 city minimum wage in 2020.
[Zac Bears]: In a year, yeah, in 2020. Do you happen to have any specific information as to if KP Law plans to present a draft ordinance to the council?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. It's a motion from Councilor Collins to approve, seconded by
[Zac Bears]: Sure, President Morell.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, President Morell, if I may, from the chair, and I'm trying to avoid doing this tonight, as I, again, read up on my Robert's rules, but I think we have a disagreement on process. I do not think we have a disagreement on substance. I'm hopeful a collaborative and good faith approach can get the result that we all share, the desired result that we all share. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins, to approve as amended, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Ferris? Yes. Four in the affirmative, three in the negative, the motion passes. Motion to revert to the regular order of business by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative zero and the negative the motion passes motions orders and resolutions 22-026 offered by Councilor Knight be it so resolved that the city chief financial officer slash auditor and necessary consultants provide the council with a quarterly presentation on the city's financial health, including but not limited to forecasted versus actual revenues and ARPA spending Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Is there any discussion? If I may, from the chair, just add an amendment that we put this resolution under reports due in addition to approving it tonight, put it under reports due so that we can invite the chief financial officer down to a future meeting to give us that presentation. Well, the title. Right now, there's an interim person in that position. I believe the position has been posted for a permanent position.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, certainly not. I would invite whoever's in that position right now.
[Zac Bears]: That is the intent of my amendment. Let's just keep it on because it's quarterly. So we can keep it on it. Yeah. Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by myself. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes 70 affirmative zero the negative the motion passes 22 027 offered by Councilor Knight, be it so resolved that the city chief financial officer auditor provide the city council with a copy of the war articles on a monthly basis and be it further resolved that the item be added to the reports due section of the council agenda. Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Any discussion? Is there a second? On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Seeing no further discussion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll, or Councilor Tseng. Oh, no. Oh, okay. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. 22-028 offered by Councilor Knight. Whereas the City of Medford has adopted provisions of Mass General Law, Chapter 59, Section 5K, allowing for the reduction of property tax obligations of persons over age 60 in exchange for volunteer services, also known as the Senior Workoff Program. And whereas the same benefit may be extended to veterans and in certain instances their spouse with the adoption of a local option, being further resolved that the City Solicitor and City Assessor appear before the Council to outline the required process for our Medford City Council to adopt the provisions of Mass General Law, Chapter 59, Section 5N, allowing for the reduction of property tax obligation of veterans in exchange for volunteer services. The text of Chapter 59, Section 5K is, for Chapter 59, is below for reference purposes. Councilor Nay.
[Zac Bears]: Just to clarify, Councilor Knight, is your motion to approve to refer to Committee of the Whole?
[Zac Bears]: In a regular session.
[Zac Bears]: Certainly no opposition from me. All right. On the motion, Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. President Morell.
[Zac Bears]: Great. On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Is there any further discussion? Any discussion from members of the public? Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes 70 affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. 22-029 offered by Councilor Caraviello. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council have the DOT slash DCR clean route 16 from the Meadow Glen Mall to the Condon Shell of all rubbish and debris. Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: are, just for my clarity, this is a, are you referring to the park across the footbridge behind Medford Square?
[Zac Bears]: Right, right, right. I think that this is actually about the, expressway for lack of a better word.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. You're, you're talking about exit 31 and then.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Yeah, and I think it's both sides, it's the side behind the police station, DPW, and the other side of 93. Yeah, it's a total mess.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Any further discussion? Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely. Any further discussion? I said I would not do this, but I'm gonna do it. It's a pet peeve of mine, the condition, especially with state controlled roads in our community. I'm not gonna, in previous times that you brought this up, I've amended this to list eight other places that we need cleaned or maintained. And as a resident of a DCR road as well, I understand it. And what I'm about to say is not meant to be an excuse at all, but I was just reading today a report that DCR's funding has been cut almost 20% since 2009. And we're really seeing the impacts of that. I used to work with DCR workers through their union. They're seeing the impact at state parks and recreation facilities, on the parkways that DCR maintains. It's a severe issue, a severe budgetary issue, the austerity that's been imposed on DCR. So I'm not gonna file any amendments or anything to that effect tonight, Our DCR needs support, and I hope that MassDOT and DCR can come down and do this right now, but in the long run, unless the state takes action, which I'm glad you're referring this to state delegation, those budgets need to go up if we're gonna have the level of services that we deserve. On the motion of Councilor Caraviello, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, as amended by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Whereas our city is in the process of moving forward from the December, 2021 holiday extravaganza, where an inaccurate and offensive image meant to depict the Hanukkah menorah was displayed. Whereas City Hall and all public venues must be spaces where people from any and all faith, cultural and ethnic backgrounds may feel an equal sense of welcome, inclusion, safety, and belonging. To be a resolve that the Medford City Council affirm the administration's renewed efforts to cultivate robust community engagement and the planning of municipal events and strengthen relationships with our city's many faith, cultural and ethnic community groups in order to make City Hall a more inclusive and welcoming space for all. Be it further resolved that the administration provide the Medford City Council with an update on its plans to improve community engagement and strengthen relationships with groups that are underrepresented in City Hall, including, but not limited to, Medford's Jewish communities. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Seconded on the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Knight. Any further discussion? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, councilor Scarpelli. Any further discussion on the motion of councilor Collins and Councilor Tseng seconded. Well, technically the motion of councilor Collins seconded by councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: 22-031 offered by Councilor Tseng. Be it resolved that the city council ask the city administration for an update on COVID-19 response plans for city senior living facilities given the recent surge in COVID-19 cases. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: That was to respond in writing and post on the city website. Any further discussion. just for my sake, I definitely support this. And I noted today that governor Baker extended a booster mandate to people working in facilities like these. So that is one thing I heard today, but definitely a lot of concerns from a lot of folks around this issue. On the motion of councilor Tseng, seconded by councilor Scarpelli, as amended by councilor Caraviello and councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, 70 affirmative. Sir, the negative emotion passes. 22034 offered by Councilor Tseng whereas public health experts continue to recommend masking to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and whereas numerous public health experts now recommend that people wear KN95 and N95 masks given the spread of the Omicron variant, be it resolved that the Medford City Council ask the city administration to acquire KN95 masks approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and to develop a plan to distribute KN-95 masks to priority groups, including municipal and school workers, individuals at a higher risk for severe COVID-19, and residents to whom purchasing masks presents a financial burden.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion, Councilor President Morell.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, President Morell. Any further discussion? I'm just gonna put one more piece of information out there. There's an incredibly helpful chart published in the Wall Street Journal last week. If you have one person who is infected and one person who's not infected, standing about six feet apart, if neither of them are wearing any sort of mask, it will take about 15 minutes to transmit a infectious dose. If they're both wearing cloth masks, it would take about 27 minutes. If they're both wearing surgical masks, it would take about one hour. If they're both wearing a non-fit tested KN95 or N95, it would take 25 hours to transmit. So it's a significant increase in protection if, you know, with a little bit of a change to the mask that you're wearing. If you're using a tightly sealed fitted N95, if both people are using that, you would have 2,500 hours of protection. So it's a really significant difference between the different types of masking. So that was just really a helpful way for me to learn about that. Seeing no further discussion on the motion of Councilor Tseng seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. 22-035 offered by Councilor Tseng. Whereas Mayor Loco Kern and the Medford Board of Health have declared racism to be a public health crisis, and whereas the Center for Disease Control cites more COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, deaths, and mental health challenges in areas where racial and ethnic minority groups live, learn, work, play, and worship, explained through discrimination, limited healthcare access and use, occupational, educational income and wealth gaps, and crowded housing conditions, be it resolved that the Medford City Council ask for an update from the city administration on its plans to achieve an equitable response to the current COVID-19 surge, and be it further resolved that the Medford City Council ask the city administration to increase free COVID-19 testing, vaccination opportunities, contact tracing, and public information efforts in the neighborhoods and communities that are disproportionately lower income and or non-white. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any discussion? Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Any further discussion? Seeing none, motion by Councilor Knight to approve, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yes, 70 affirmative, zero in the negative, motion passes. Is there a motion to take papers in the hands of the clerk? Motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Knight to take papers under suspension. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative zero and the negative motion passes 22 036 offered by Councilor Caraviello be it resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate the Elliott Pearson Children's School at Tufts University on celebrating its 100th year. The Elliott Pearson School has served countless children and families in Medford. and the Elliott Pearson Children's School is one of the first nursery schools in the country and soon became a training school for new teachers. The school has served as a high-quality laboratory and demonstration school, serving children from diverse backgrounds in Medford. The school also serves as a teacher training and research site for undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral students applying for scholarships to practice, being so resolved that the Medford City Council thanks the faculty and staff at the Elliott Pearson Children's School and congratulates them on 100 years of outstanding service to the children and families of Medford best wishes for the next 100 years, Councilor Garavaglio.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Any further discussion? Motion approved by Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Knight. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yes. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. Public participation. Is there anyone in the room or on Zoom who would like to participate? Seeing none, we'll move on to the records. Records of the meeting of January 4th, 2022 were passed to Councilor Collins. Councilor Collins, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: And you move?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. I move the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Caraviello to approve the records of January 4th, 2022. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes. Yes, 70 affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. Before we motion to adjourn, I just want to remind everyone next week we will be meeting at 5.30 in committee of the whole to discuss the conversion to an elections commission. We'll have our regular meeting on Tuesday at 7 p.m. And on Wednesday at 5.30 p.m. we will be meeting in committee of the whole to discuss applications from the community preservation committee. And we also have a meeting tomorrow night, Wednesday this week on the issues with flooding at Woburn and High Streets. Is there a motion on the floor? Motion to adjourn. Councilor Caraviello, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: vice president bears yes 70 affirmative zero the negative the motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, I'd like to nominate Councilor Morell for president.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Don't we have to vote to close nominations technically?
[Zac Bears]: Nicole Morell.
[Zac Bears]: I abstain.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you all. And my grandfather is looking down especially happy with Councilor Knight and Councilor Tseng for saying my full name. So thank you very much. Look forward to working with you. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Item 22-003 is, I sponsored it, so if Councilor Caraviello would be so kind to share the next couple of items.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I believe this resolution is a standard operating resolution of the council to extend our council rules from the previous session to the current session, and I move approval. The motion by Councilor Behr, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you again, Mr. President. This is another standard operating procedure, taking all of the papers that have been committee or on the table in our previous session and advancing them to this session and I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. The intent of this resolution is to open the discussion of the idea of moving to a different meeting schedule. I do know that in the past councils, this has been entertained. I believe several councils ago, Councilor Camuso, Councilor Miyako had considered moving to meeting three weeks and then the fourth week of the month being for Committee of the Whole. As this is just intended to start a conversation, my intent here is to move to refer this to the Subcommittee on Rules for further discussion.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: And if I may. Thank you, Mr. President. In addition to what Councilor Morell said, the updated language would reflect how subcommittees have been created and appointed, at least as long as I've been Councilor, and I think longer than that. There's another resolution on here to review the full Council rules. So, you know, it's possible that we can make additional updates, changes, put a number of standing committees back in there. Again, the intent here is to just reflect how committees and subcommittees are appointed, created and appointed by and the members and chairs appointed by the President of the Council.
[Zac Bears]: So, if I may, just to say that, you know, these do not reflect the current committees and subcommittees in 2020, 2021. And the intent here is really to say, hey, I think personally, how I feel is to actually put into the rules what we have done for the past two years and say, you know, the president will create subcommittees. Some of them are certainly, we certainly have some of these, but we don't have a school buildings, we don't have a school racial balance, we don't have public utilities, for example. And there are some subcommittees we do have right now that aren't reflected in this list. So, so you know the intent here is, is, I agree with you to have a discussion about this in the future that's actually what my next resolution is about, but just in between now and then, to make sure that the current president can appoint subcommittees in the interim, so it's not meant to be a permanent, you know, this is how it's going to go from here on out it's just, you know, I think it could be argued, right, that last term, Councilor Caraviello appointed a set of committees that aren't reflected in here. Is that against the council rules, you know? So that's all this is meant to be, is kind of temporary to say, we can appoint committees for now, and then we can also have those discussions.
[Zac Bears]: Those are old.
[Zac Bears]: All this does this is actually taking all of the uh listed committees out of the current rules right and just changing it to the president shall form committees and the subcommittees and appoint chairpersons and members right okay so i think that's my confusion is like the the understanding of what
[Zac Bears]: If I may. I would prefer to vote on this tonight. And that doesn't mean even if it were to pass, that we wouldn't have those discussions and they wouldn't come up with a new structure as we review the rules. And I just want to say, so if it goes, if it goes mixed, whatever, it's not unanimous. I just want to say either way, we're going to have the discussion and we're going to. We're going to get it going.
[Zac Bears]: I believe you made a motion. I don't know if there was a second, but I would move approval unless there's a second on your motion.
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by.
[Zac Bears]: I would motion to approve as written.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. This continues kind of the conversation we've been having here. The intent of this resolution is to, and I will make a motion at the end of my statement, is to refer this to the Rural Subcommittee to discuss, review the city council rules, you know, maybe at a table of contents, maybe maybe it's time we can officially take out the no smoking behind the rail rule. Um you know, so, I think we're, I think we're a smoke-free building for sure. Um so, so, you know, there's there's quite a bit of stuff we could look into just maybe make it better organized, review what's in there, what's relevant, and again, specifically on these questions of subcommittees, look at and and you know, I think how we'd go, we'd have a real subcommittee, then we'd have committee of the whole, talk about it as a whole council, and really look at a structure that reflects what we've been doing going forward. So that's what this resolution is about. I had a motion to refer this to the rules subcommittee, and thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. many communities, well, I'll start here. Chapter 51, section 16A allows for cities to adopt a piece of mass general law, which would allow us to move to the system of having an elections commission. It would move us from having the clerk and the board of registrars model to a formal elections commission. I think there's a variety of reasons that we that at least I think that would be a good idea. And, you know, may also reflect some, some of the changes we've been talking about in general around elections, with it being more work and then we now have an elections coordinator and it really is its own own. animal, if you will. So part of what this allows this this section of mass general law allows us to do is basically if we were to adopt it, it would immediately transfer our Board of Registrars of voters to becoming a board of election commissioners. the clerk position would then come off of that board and any appointments going forward, the mayor would make those appointments subject to the approval of the of the city council. Um so, my motion here is to refer this to a committee of the whole so that we can discuss this with the city solicitor, with the clerk, with the relevant folks from from our the way that we should move forward. I can just say from my reading of the law and also from seeing which communities have adopted this it does seem like this is the way that the state law it's kind of pushing communities towards this model and away from the older clerk registrar voters model at least that's how I read the general law. I just think it's another example of something we can do, adopt state law and already allows communities to do this, to move forward on administration of elections. So again, move to refer this to a committee that will refer the discussion.
[Zac Bears]: The clerk would no longer be a registrar.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President, just to add to what Councilor Morell was saying, you know, I was in the room, my organization was part of Raise Up Massachusetts when we were negotiating what exactly are we going to look at for paid family medical leave and the $15 minimum wage, and it was kind of a hectic morning. getting phone calls back and forth from the leadership and the legislature back to us, what's in, what's out. And one of the things that was left out on both of those fronts, and we've discussed one of the other ones here before, was city and school employees. They were left out of the paid family medical leave, and they were left out of the $15 minimum wage because it was said that this was an unfunded mandate on cities. There is again this chapter 175 M section 10. It's an adoption of state law that this council that gives the authority to councils or whatever the equivalent body is in another community to join the paid family medical leave program for the state. We would be the first in the Commonwealth. I think that is a good thing. I think that puts us in a competitive position with a lot of other communities, especially right now in this job market, when top talent is going all over the place and looking for the best thing. And the other thing too, it puts us in a more competitive position with the private sector. I actually just was speaking with a family of someone who is now working for the city, previously was in the private sector. When they were in the private sector, they paid into this program, now they've moved to the city, they're at a moment in their family history where it'd be great to be able to take advantage of this, and they just found out they're no longer eligible because they work for a municipality. So certainly there are things to work out, look at the law, look at the process, and obviously there'll be a budgetary impact, but I think it's something that would be good for our city and school staff 100%. So I would second Councilor Morell's motion to refer this to Committee of the Whole.
[Zac Bears]: One second, everybody. All right, so we had paper. 21-021, petition for a convictual license by Michael LaChapelle, 18 Glenwood Avenue, Winchester, Massachusetts, 01890 for GNP Pizza, 51 High Street, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155. Councilors, do I need to open the hearing? We'll go to the Chair of Licensing.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. LaChapelle, are you on the line, or do you have a representative?
[Zac Bears]: Can we just have your name and address for the record, please?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, Councilor.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Any further discussion? Motion approved. Motion from Councilor Caraviello, seconded by?
[Zac Bears]: second by everybody, but with Councilor Knight. And if I may, just before we call the roll, I used to work at Rosa's in the same location. So I'm familiar with the location and I wish you all the best. No, I know.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. That is seven in the affirmative, zero on the negative, and the motion passes. Motion on the floor, revert rec to regular from Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. Motion passes. 22-005 offered by Councilor Knight. Whereas Medford City Hall closes on Wednesday evening at 7.30 PM and on Friday afternoon at 12.30 PM.
[Zac Bears]: Is there a motion to waive the reading? So moved by Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor. There's a motion from Councilor Knight to refer this to the Committee on Rules. Is there a second?
[Zac Bears]: Great. And any discussion? I had Councilor Scarpelli, then Councilor Caraviello, then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you both. Councilor Carballo.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you all. There was a motion from Councilor Knight to refer to the subcommittee on rules, seconded by Councilor Morell. Any further discussion? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further discussion? Any discussion by members of the public? I am not seeing any, so Mr. Clerk, on the motion, could you please call the roll? And this is to refer to rules. To refer to the subcommittee on rules.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative, and the motion passes. 22-006 offered by Councilor Knight, be it so resolved that the Medford City Council hold a moment of silence in memory of Governor's Councilor Michael J. Callahan, a dedicated public servant who passed on January 6th, 2011, following five decades of public service to the people of Medford, and be it further resolved that this evening's council meeting be dedicated to his memory. Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Any further discussion? Yes. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Just again, I agree with Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you for bringing this forward. We should vote and then have a moment of silence. So on the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. If everyone could please stand for a moment of silence.
[Zac Bears]: Resolution 22-007 offered by Councilor Knight. Whereas gas distribution utilities are required to annually report the location of gas leaks to the Department of Public Utilities. And whereas as of December 31, 2020, there are reported 235 unrepaired gas leaks generating 104 tons of emissions annually in the city of Medford. And whereas independent research shows there are typically 1.5 to 3 times more leaks than reported. Be it so resolved that the Medford City Council request that city administration prepare and present a five year plan to address gas leaks in our community and report back to the council Councilor Knight, Mr. President, thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have that, Mr. Clerk? do section nine days, as my council colleagues to support the resolution I look forward to the administration. Second, you have a motion from Council right seconded by Councilors Garfield a discussion, Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Is that an amendment to invite National Grid to the meeting? Yes, it is. All right. Thank you. If you could record that. Seconded by Councilor Knight. I'm gonna go Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. I actually have Councilor Morell and then our President Morell and then we'll go to Councilor Tseng. President Morell.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Morell. Welcome baby Jack. And, and we'll go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion or discussion by members of the public? Seeing none, on the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Morell, I believe, or we'll go with Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. For approval as amended. Yes, for approval as amended.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 70 affirmative zero the negative the motion passes as amended to 022-008 offered by Councilor Knight. Be it so resolved that the city administration provide the council with a listing of vacant positions funded in current fiscal year's budget, and be it further resolved that the city council be provided with an organizational chart reflecting the transitional roles and responsibilities of existing employees until the aforementioned vacancies are filled Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Just FYI, we're having some issues with your microphone. It's not picking everything up. If you could maybe angle it, yeah, a little bit more. I don't know, it might be the loud HVAC system, I saw Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Understood. Thank you. You're good? I'm good. Any other discussion on this item? Motion approved. Any discussion from members of the public? All right, on the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli to approve. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 7 in the affirmative, 0 in the negative, the motion passes. 22-009 offered by Councilor Knight, whereas the Massachusetts Municipal Association published its January 2020 article entitled, Best Practice Guide Recommends Promoting the Public Works Profession, and whereas the Medford Public Schools Vocational Technical Education Curriculum provided cooperative education opportunities for our students, It's all resolved at the Medford City Council request the school administration seek opportunities to educate and promote the public works profession among younger generations by speaking to students at elementary, middle and high schools and expanding vocational programming in the areas of road maintenance drinking water and sewer infrastructure. urban landscaping and other related concepts, and be it further requested that the school administration identify and explore opportunities to connect classroom learning to career applications by offering hands-on projects, job shadowing, or internships with municipal departments. Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng any further discussion. If I may, from the chair, I definitely agree with the motion with what counts right said what Councilor Tseng said, and I think also that the work that's been done since I was at Medford High School to bring together the vocational side and the, the high, you know, high school in the vocational technical school together. and provide those opportunities to everyone that is a good stepping stone, and this could be another one. So I'm definitely supportive of this. There's motion from Councilor Knight to approve, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Any further discussion as amended? For 90 days. For 90 days. Seeing anyone, any discussion from the public? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. 22-015 offered by Councilor Caraviello, be it so resolved that the Medford City Council requests that the mayor provide the council with an update on as to the status of the three cannabis licenses that have yet to be awarded. Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Any discussion from other councilors?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight, any further discussion. Chief of staff is area.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And just from the chair, I did want to both say that I agree that it's important to move forward, I think, in due haste on these host community agreements. But I also did want to read, we did receive a message from Steve Smirni, the Acting Communications Director earlier today. Hello, Councilors, in regards to Council Resolution 22-015, please see the below press release regarding potential cannabis licenses that the City will reward. Press release went out December 30, 2021, and the first paragraph, I won't read the whole thing, it just says, last month, the Cannabis Advisory Commission presented Mary Briana Lungo-Koehn with the final ranking of nine applicants seeking to establish retail businesses in Medford. From this list, the mayor chose to start by interviewing the top five applicants to review and discuss parking traffic, community benefits, and other key priorities. The mayor has already met with the highest ranking company, Theory Wellness, and has been in active discussions with its executives on a host community agreement. She'll be meeting with representatives from the other four companies throughout the month of January. So that is the communication that we received from the administration on that. Any further discussion from Councilors or from members of the public? Seeing none, on the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Collins. Oh, sorry, Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Ferris yes 70 affirmative zero negative motion passes 22-016 offered by Councilor curve yellow be it resolved that the administration share with the council it's planned to oppose the new 1800 seat arena proposed by encore casino Councilor.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Is that the discussion of funding, is that an amendment or a B paper? It's a B paper. All right, thank you. Any discussion by other councilors?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you both. I'm gonna go with Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do you feel like your question's been, do you have a clear understanding of what the request is? Or would you like to hear from the Chief of Staff?
[Zac Bears]: Chief of Staff Nazarian.
[Zac Bears]: Are you close before you have further questions.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I'm gonna go to Councilor Knight and then President Morell.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you President Morell, just if I may, from the chair before we everyone's had a shot I haven't been able to say anything. I'm learning very quickly what this means to be sitting up here. I just wanna say that I actually agree with everything. I agree with everyone on probably most of what everybody said. So I do think we're kind of in a bit of a conundrum here, cause I think this is important. We gotta fight this. And I think we need to find the best path forward to fight this. My one, I think we may be graced by the fact that there is not an appropriation on the agenda tonight. I don't think that we can vote on money that hasn't been requested by the mayor and put on the agenda. So I think we have until, I mean, we don't have much time but we have, if, if we want to get to an answer here, you know, a motion could be put forward from the mayor to appropriate certain funds on our next agenda but I just wanted to put it out there that we do not have an appropriation on the agenda tonight, I don't think we do not have the power to create one. So, just wanted to say that I then saw, Councilor Caraviello we do have some members of the public who want to speak but you first Councilor.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. He's on he's he should be on mute. Yep. Yes, sir.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor, just, I'm going to go to Council, but I just want to make this point clear. I understand time is of the essence, I understand this was found out in late December and this is our first council meeting since then, there's no appropriation before this council tonight, we cannot create an appropriation, regardless of the timeframe, so, so we cannot appropriate money tonight for this effort, because it just We do not have the American come back with a paper next week. Sure. Yes, that was an appropriation on it. Correct. I'm just saying, you know, I want to make it clear to everybody tonight that we can't.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're going to go to members of the public in a minute but I would agree that, you know, considering this hearing is on the 12th our next meeting is on the 11th, I think it would be probably a good move in the short term to have the city solicitor represent us, at least in that initial engagement while we get another plan back here to address this fully. That's just my opinion. We've got two members of the public who want to speak. First, Mr. John Costas, please give your name and address for the record. You can unmute yourself, John. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Kostas. Mr. Navarre?
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Navarre. Mr. Ken Kraus, name and address for the record once I unmute you. All yours, Ken.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion from the council. Any further discussion from members of the public. I see more Carol, I'm going to unmute you please give us your name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Carroll. Any further discussion? Vic, your hand's still up. Do you want to speak again? Go ahead, Vic.
[Zac Bears]: I'll start earlier. All right. Thank you, Victor. I mean if the money has already been appropriated, then, then it's at the discretion of the mayor to use that money for this effort if she so chooses, or to come back before us in the future with an appropriation and additional appropriation so given that, I think, Councilor Caraviello that would mean that you would draw the big paper. And so we have on the initial paper, be it resolved, and again, just from the chair, I agree that we should strongly be opposing this effort. Go ahead, Councilor Caraviellolo.
[Zac Bears]: So, yeah. And again, just from the chair, I think We all agree on the benefit of Chevalier that need to fight this, the fact that Encore should not be doing this, and it's a clear violation of their agreement. There may be some, I tend to agree with Councilor Scarpelli on some of the questions around who's paying for what, but certainly I personally am supportive.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello any further discussion, seeing none online see now in the room on the motion of Councilor Caraviello the a paper be it resolved that the administration share with the council it's planned to oppose the new 1800 seat arena proposed by the encore casino proposed by Councilor Caraviello seconded by Councilor Collins, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Bears yes 70 affirmative zero and the negative the motion passes 22-017 offered by Councilor carb yellow and Councilor Knight is so resolved the Medford City Council said it's deepest and sincere condolences to the family of former Mayor Stephanie machete Burke on the passing of her mother, Lena machete her presence in our community will be missed.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion, Councilor Sagan?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor, and from the Chair, I also, you know, am friends with the former Mayor Burke and the Burke family, and I know that the role that Lena played in their life. I'm very grateful to see a great grandchild recently, and just a very loving and kind family and caring family to each other. So I extend my condolences as well. We do have a couple other condolence resolutions. I'm wondering if we could go through them and then take a moment of silence after we go through those, if everyone's okay with that. All right, thank you. Any further discussion on this resolution?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve Councilor Kariviello, seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion. passes 22-018 offered by Councilor Caraviello, be it resolved that the city of Medford send its deepest and sincere condolences to the Sloan family on the passing of their mother, Barbara Sloan, Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Any further discussion? Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Caraviello and seconded by Councilor Knight, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none of the negative promotion passes 22-020 offered by Councilor Knight. It's so resolved that the Medford City Council extended deep and sincere condolences to the family of Eugene martini on his recent past and Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Knight any further discussion. Seeing that on the motion of Councilor Knight seconded by saying to my Councilor scar Pelley Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, zero negative. Motion passes. Everyone could rise for a moment of silence. 22-019 offered by Councilor Caraviello. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council provide COVID home tests to the residents of Medford. Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. If I may from the chair, as it's been widely reported, Governor Baker made a decision there were 102 communities that were the highest need communities somehow meant for did not fall into that category I truly don't understand that. And to editorialize for a minute I think it's. between that and what's been going on with Desi regarding schools and tests and opening. It's just another example of Governor Baker throwing a problem back on municipalities when it's a problem that he should have solved. But I will read, there was a response from the mayor today. As you know, the state only provided 102 communities with rapid tests. So we're exploring the purchase of those tests. The governor did say that they would try to work with the vendors to make it available to the communities who were not included in that group of 102. but it says shipping is two weeks out approximately while at the same time exploring setting up a testing site in the very near future. We may do one or the other or a combination of both. I will be in touch with more info as we work through the details. That was from the mayor today. Is there any further discussion on this resolution? On the motion of Councilor Caraviello, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli has just entered the room.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. 22-022, communications from, oh sorry, communications from the mayor. 22-022, December 30th, 2021 by electronic delivery to the honorable president and members of the Medford City Council. Read budget amendment. Dear Mr. President and councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that the city council approve the following amendment to the fiscal year 2022 budget. Line item 0101515032, contract legal services, FY 22 budgeted amount $26,600 proposed amended amount $81,600. Following the passage of the fiscal year 22 budget by the city council I engaged in conversations with Council President City Solicitor Kim Scanlon and KP Law to develop a process where the Council can avail themselves of KP Law services and Council as needed. In those discussions, it was agreed that requests for Council attendance or advice will be submitted by the City Council through the Council President, who will coordinate with the City Solicitor, who will schedule meetings with KP Law to get whatever legal resources are needed to address the City Council's request. respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. I'm seeing Councilor Caraviello-Viello.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Knight?
[Zac Bears]: Agreed. Thank you, Councilman. Chief of Staff Nazarian.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information, Mr. President. If I may, does that answer your question, Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: I'll go back to you. And there is feedback. So folks can just shut off their microphones when they're done speaking. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: And roaches, rodents and roaches, yeah. Sorry. Thank you, Councilor, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Sen, you have the floor.
[Zac Bears]: All right.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins, Councilor Caraviello.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Craviello. President Morell is there. I don't see your hand up. I just wanted to ask if you wanted to chime in before I chime in.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, President Morell. And if I may, from the chair, I am of a similar mind that we shouldn't hamstring the work of city government at this point. I would say that, you know, I would have preferred a different resolution and proposal before us tonight than what is before us now. And as it comes to the fiscal 23 budget, you know, I would not support the law office structure as constituted as the city solicitor and KP law only. I can hear you on the benefits of KP law, I think you could create a structure where we actually have a full time assistant city solicitor, the current city solicitor, and an amount of money set aside for when we need special counsel, I think that would be a much more appropriate uh, way to move forward. However, that's not what's before us tonight. Um, so in a similar fashion to Councilor Collins, I would agree, uh, I would agree to move this forward tonight, uh, but with the understanding that, you know, in the next budget round, it's going to have to be different, um, or we're not going to, you know, if we get this again, I think you're going to see what happened last time, except maybe instead of going down to 26,000, it goes down to zero. So, um, just want to put that out there. Uh, is there any further discussion, uh, from members of the council? Councilor
[Zac Bears]: Yep. 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 city councilor. Councilor Knight has invoked rule 20 therefore this paper is laid upon the table for one week.
[Zac Bears]: Paper two. Paper 22-023 December 30 2020 re personnel ordinance dear Mr. President and Councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that the city council approves the following amendments the revised ordinances entitled personnel article to classification and compensation plan section 66 dash 33 entitled officers and employees, hyphen non union by adopting the following changes. amendment a that the language of CAF 20 shall be amended to remove the following position of the language of CAF 21 shall be amended to include the following position, quote, finance director slash auditor, amendment B, the language of CAF 19 shall be amended to include the following position, human resources director, additional positions may be added to the existing compensation plan following the upcoming compensation plan and salary study being undertaken by the city through the community compact grant program, respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, mayor.
[Zac Bears]: I believe it was prior to 90 days.
[Zac Bears]: Almost.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Uh, any further discussion or chiefs time is Aaron. If you want to present the paper.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. Any discussion? Councilor Knight. I do believe that
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, President Morell.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, well well well the team is definitely.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I think that's fun just quickly before we move to Councilor did you were able to find the answer.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President, if I may, if I may actually tell us what's been waiting.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion? Yes, Chief Administrator.
[Zac Bears]: Is there a second? Second.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, four in the affirmative, three in the negative. The motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Morell, seconded by Councilor Craviello to take paper 21-631. We have a few different versions. This is the one that is for third reading, which is amendments. A, B, C, D, E, G, and H. Is there a motion on the motion? Please call the roll, Mr. Clerk.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, this is for third reading. The parking control specialist, parking control specialist, foreperson, parking meter repair person, lead parking meter prepare person, Community Development Block Grant Administrator, Staff Planner, and Community Recovery Coach.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Caraviello a second.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative zero and the negative. This is taken off the table and this now under consideration. Any discussion or any motions. Motion approved from Councilor for third reading from Councilor curve yellow seconded by seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. It was just passes third reading.
[Zac Bears]: Motion from Councilor Morell to take it off the table and approve for first reading seconded. I don't, I don't believe so. The records of the meeting were passed to Councilor Caraviello. Do you have those records? Yeah, yeah. No, no, no, no, no, no. Yeah, just since you were the one to review them, it seems like Councilor Knight and Councilor Scarpelli have said that they felt that was tabled for a certain purpose. I do not believe that to be true, but I'm happy to review. Just tabled for, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: It's a ruling of the chair that there was just a motion to table and we could take that back up at this time.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to take that paper off the table and approve it for first reading by Councilor Morell. Is there a second? seconded by Councilor Tseng. I am just going to read that, those amendments. Amendment F is the language of CAV 12 shall be amended to include the following ARPA funded position, economic development planner. Amendment I is the language of H9 shall be amended to include the following ARPA funded positions, inspectional services project manager and public health sanitarian. Amendment J, the language of H9A shall be amendment to include the following ARPA-funded position, public health response nurse. Amendment L, the language of CAF III shall be, and it's a part of amendment L, language of CAF III shall be amended to include the following ARPA-funded positions, community liaison and contact tracer. And again, a part of amendment M, The language of CAF 11 shall be amended to include the following ARPA funded positions, emergency preparedness coordinator, food security specialist, health and equity outreach coordinator, epidemiologist, and youth prevention specialist. Mr. Clerk on the motion of Councilor Morell, seconded by Mr. President, just a quick question.
[Zac Bears]: That math sounds right to me, but I mean, it seems like we're just approving them for the cash, not for the budget.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. President Morell.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion of Councilor Morell to take this off the table and approve, seconded by, what was the second? Councilor Tseng. Is there any further discussion? Seeing no discussion by members of the public. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. And approve for first reading.
[Zac Bears]: That's what the motion was. Councilor Knight asked for a motion to sever, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. So let's just take motion to take off the table first.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, none of the negative, the motion is taken off the table. We now have the motion to approve from Councilor Morell seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll for first reading for first reading.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, two in the negative. That is sent for first reading. We now have public participate, well, I guess we need, no, let's just take it off the table. So we have public participation, petition of Joseph A. Miglione, 446 Charles Street, Maldon, MA. Motion of the paper ruled out of order. The gentleman is not a resident of the community. The motion by Councilor Knight to rule the paper out of order, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, could you please call the roll on the motion to rule that out of order? Thank you. not germane to the city council.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in the affirmative. None in the negative. The motion is that petition is ruled out of order. Records, the records of the meeting of December 21st, 2021 were passed to Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Caraviello, how did you find those records? The motion of Councilor Caraviello to approve the records of December 21st, 2021, seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have any affirmative, none negative. The motion passes. Motion to adjourn by Councilor Caraviello, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, if I may just, I was grateful to be able to be here last night. And here's some from so many of the folks that you served with and worked with over your years. And I was able to say to you last night, but I think it's worth saying to the public, that I was able to grow up and go to schools that you built and the school system that you built. And I've never known a Medford that didn't have a Paulette Van der Kloot on the school committee. So I'm just incredibly grateful for the service that you provided and for the education that I was able to receive, I think with a big portion of credit going to you. So thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Could we just discuss each amendment? Could we have that question answered as we go through the amendments instead of doing it all at once and then going back?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to table, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. The reason I motion to table amendment F is that there are several positions in here I think many in public health that are currently filled and using cares act funding. My preference tonight would be that the council approved those positions so that those those continue to be funded we're moving from one federal funding source the cares act to the another one the ARPA. I think the federal funds manager is very important. Obviously, interested to hear the discussion and get questions answered but that's kind of where I'm coming from on this tonight, you know, we can have further discussion on positions that aren't filled but if there's stuff currently filled using cares act funding, and it's moving over to ARPA, I think we should move forward with that tonight.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, and director O'Connor Did you say the community liaison we don't currently have that filled.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, so it's the data analysts the liaison are filled in the contact tracer would be additional.
[Zac Bears]: All right. I would move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to sever data analysts from the other two positions.
[Zac Bears]: What if it makes you comfortable? Is the fact that we, this is not worth people's health and lives.
[Zac Bears]: Well, if we're not going to pass it, then we're not going to have contact tracing. We're in the Omicron surge. We have 700 cases or 650 cases. So, you know, I'll vote to keep this ball in the air as much as we can, but I'd like to approve the positions.
[Zac Bears]: You should stay home.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Are the epidemiologists and youth prevention specialist positions filled?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to sever.
[Zac Bears]: I hope so. Thank you. Nina is this currently funded through the cares act.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, couldn't say it better than Councilor Knight, but it's been an honour to serve with you. You were the first Council President when I came on, and two months into that term, a global pandemic started. And I always appreciated your thoughtfulness and communication, leading this Council through unprecedented times. And, you know, We've done a lot in two years, more than I could even say right now but I think we've done a lot of good for this community you've done a lot of good for the 10 years before we served together on the school, when you were on school committee and city council. I think you may have joined the school committee as I was leaving the Medford Public Schools and we had some difficult budgets back then after that 2008 recession. And I know that you worked hard with Councilor Scarpelli, Paula van der Kloot and many others to keep all of our programs intact. So you've had an impact on me directly, both as a colleague and as a leader before that. And I really appreciate your service. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think probably in these past two years I've been in more meetings with you than any other Councilor we've served on subcommittees, obviously these meetings committee of the whole, and and your historical knowledge, your understanding of something that started 20 years ago and we're still dealing with it now. I think it's been incredibly helpful to me in the smallest situation of the biggest situation. But I also have to count echo Councilor Knight, and we've had a few knockdown drag outs here. And welcome. And it's, you know, every time I'm like, maybe I'll be a little less anxious when Michael gets that bulldog attitude on and he's coming at you, but it makes me think about what I'm doing. what I'm bringing to the table, the argument that I wanna put forward at that specific moment. You know, we even had one tonight and I'm glad we're going out on the same page that we've been going on the whole time because exactly what Councilor Knight said, you make me a better councilor, you make me more knowledgeable about what's going on in the city. You changed my mind more than I expected when I started. And not only that, you've been in public service as long as I can remember here in Medford. I remember holding out a sign in 2003 for Bruce Kulik, because his daughter was in my elementary school class. And your signs are out there, and they have been ever since then. So that can't be understated, what you've given to the city, the time, your family, and your service. And I think it will be missed, and it is definitely deeply appreciated and evidenced by the many, many times that you've been re-elected by the residents of this community. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Found those records splendid, and I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know the motion, but that's what it is. Sandy, just so you can explain this. This is mainly because the legislature went out and approved their districts prior to the city, or without considering the city's re-precincting.
[Zac Bears]: just that for the benefit of the public, we just held a committee of the whole meeting with Alan at 530 this evening and asked many questions and discussed this process.
[Zac Bears]: just if I made that request was for to talk about next year.
[Zac Bears]: When you have time.
[Zac Bears]: Certified.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Watts. Councilor Betz. Thank you. And this was actually really helpful for me to understand this. Basically, if we were to implement this, anyone who lives in a residential unit and owns that unit, or owns that property would qualify for the residential exemption. The issue is that over a certain value, the increased rate overtakes the savings from that exemption. So even if your home's worth $2 million, you would still qualify for the residential exemption. It's just that the difference in the rate of $2 per 1,000 would end up being more than the exemption that you're getting on the front end. So it's not that certain, if you're over 700,000, you wouldn't qualify. It's just that you wouldn't save anything. and you may end up paying more because the rate is higher. So essentially the policy decision, and obviously I think we're all very clear we're not gonna be making this decision today, not only because it would be a nightmare for your office, but it would be very difficult. It'd be impossible, I think it's fair to say. The policy question in the future would be, do we think that people whose home values are less than 700,000 should pay a little bit less and people whose home values are more than 700,000 should pay more? That's basically the decision at the end of the day.
[Zac Bears]: And then they could choose to distribute that exemption, the break. They could say, we're gonna keep, you know, we're gonna pay this amount of taxes and not that even these decisions really happen this way, but we're gonna pay this amount and the renters are gonna pay this amount and that distribution would be up to the property owner. I mean, they end up paying the city the same thing, but yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Right, all right, that really helped me to fully grasp what this means, so thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Hasn't this been fun? Thank you for presenting this tonight. It's pretty clear to me that no matter what path we take, these are two items that we're gonna need. And that's kind of the conversation that we're on right now. Looking at agreement two, $38,000 over five years, that seems great. It seems like Reef Parking Republic was taking us to the woodshed for about a million, $2 million a year. So that's fantastic, I really appreciate that. And having that figure, that dollar amount in front of us right now. for five years worth of technical services for collection of fees. On agreement one, I didn't see it in the presentation proposal. Is there a five-year cost for that contract or is that dependent on us entering it? The cars, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: You're fine.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. And I guess on that question, and it relates as well to the next paper before us on the CAF positions, is the administration going to be bringing a supplemental appropriation for those positions, a budget appropriation for those positions? And is that expected soon? And would that also, Does this paper constitute an appropriation for the leases or are you actually gonna bring back the amounts and then we will vote on the appropriation for one and two?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, got it.
[Zac Bears]: We can talk about that on the next paper. I just wanted to know, So these are coming out of the ordinary budget that's already been appropriated in the fiscal 22 budget. Great. You know, I don't think I have any, any more questions at this point. It seems like these are things we're going to need no matter what. I will say in terms of transition, it's been pretty clear to me and basically any resident who's parking in the square that the current vendor isn't enforcing anything. and hasn't been enforcing anything for months. So we've been in transition, you know, we have no parking enforcement in the city because the vendor is, you know, taking their ball and going home. So it sounds like to me, if we were able to do this, that at least we'll be able to get that base level of enforcement back up relatively quickly, and we will have the community input. And it sounds to me, given what I have talked to folks about previous programs you've worked on, Fay, that, you know, there'll be constant community feedback for the length of your service here in this community.
[Zac Bears]: To improve, well, right. And I can tell you the emails and phone calls I get that I have constant input and feedback around parking. So, you know, at the end of the day, this seems to me to be fundamentally about do we trust that we're going to move forward, that we're going to bring parking in house, that these are tools that we need, and that these are the two leases for these two specific products that will be at the best cost for the city and serve the program well. And I'm, you know, supportive of that tonight, have seconded council night's motion to support that. And I just don't think that you know, the best way to make policy is covering our butts. I just don't think that's the best way to make policy. So I think we should move forward with this tonight. And secondly, you know, I would have used a more choice word, but we are on television. In addition, if we're talking about rule 17, I think we've gone way over 15 minutes and three times per person on this topic. So there's a motion that's seconded. If people have not talked three times.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: It'll be pickup because right now nothing's going on.
[Zac Bears]: Because I can't believe you're driving around with all these things that don't work out. Can you go back in time? Can I go back in time? Can you time travel? Because I think we need that. That might be a requirement.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, president. Um, just back to what we were talking about earlier, um, around the appropriation. So we budgeted for the director of the department and for three enforcement officers. I just read, we're going to be calling them now control specialists. So
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And so we're just, we're changing the name of that, but we have budgeted. So this is asking for four of them. We've already budgeted for three of them. And what I think I heard you saying earlier is that your hope is to fund the rest of these positions out of the revenue of the department.
[Zac Bears]: is something we need to make sure you're hoping with the six months remaining after this starts in January, that you'll be able to. actually figure out what we're bringing in because Republic and Reef are not giving you the information that you would need to make that.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Yep, this makes sense to me. I'm happy to move approval on these four CAF changes.
[Zac Bears]: Hold on a minute, that's F-I-J-K-L-M.
[Zac Bears]: I have it, yeah. Got it. Yeah, that's the federal funds and the public information.
[Zac Bears]: I'm voting against it because she told me to. Shocking.
[Zac Bears]: The clerk is writing the motions.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, God's best. Unless you have a presentation first.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. Thank you both for bringing this up. For the CDBG administrator and the staff planner, were those positions that had been budgeted for and hired for in the city prior to this being proposed and even prior to this mayoral administration?
[Zac Bears]: Right. And, and so this is the administration coming to us with what we've asked for, which is to review all the positions in the city. and see which are in the calf or are not historically been in the calf.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. I would motion to approve amendments E and G.
[Zac Bears]: Just I want to say thank you for being here, for sitting through the meeting so far. And I really appreciate all the ARPA positions that you brought forward tonight. One of the reasons I was hoping we could consider them tonight is the situation that we are still in, and I know the incredible difficulty of hiring health and health-related workers at this time. So I just wanna say, really appreciate this, hope we can consider it quickly. I know that this council voted to move it to committee of the whole tonight, but I just wanna say they're really valuable and I hope we can do it soon.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Would it be, would the members of this council be willing to meet on Monday? I'd like to try to consider this on next Tuesday.
[Zac Bears]: I heard you. So we can meet up, if you want to meet on Wednesday, I'll call a meeting for Wednesday. So then next time this would be considered on a regular meeting agenda would be in two weeks on December 20th? Yes, 21st or whatever. All right.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Right here, yeah. It's the CPA, but the fire station.
[Zac Bears]: There is a, I don't have the time. Do you know what time the event starts here tomorrow? I'm sorry. There's an event, the holiday extravaganza.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Certainly want to get to the bottom of this. I just wanted to add congratulations to you and all of your members on the election of Sean O'Brien as the President of National Teamsters.
[Zac Bears]: I just think, since we are talking about what the Secretary of State's office said there have been multiple Republic reports in the Medford transcript about this. And I just want to remind everyone that A, the election has been certified, and B, directly quoting Deborah O'Malley, a spokeswoman for the Secretary of State's office, quote, no voter did anything wrong by casting a ballot. Everybody who voted, voted legally. That's the opinion of the Secretary of State's office.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Councilor Marks, for putting this on the agenda. I agree with everything you said. I think Brian has done some incredible work. And, you know, my first term, this term, I have been the chair of the Public Works Subcommittee, and I have been lucky enough to work with Brian, Council President, Councilor Marks, Councilor Caraviello, through looking at snow removal, snow removal policy, sidewalks, ordinance, et cetera, and Brian was, was an essential part of that and a great partner. I can still remember sitting down getting ready to chair my first subcommittee meeting as a Councilor and getting some words of encouragement from Brian that it'll be okay. So it worked out well. Sad to see him go, but definitely want to congratulate him for everything he's done for our city. Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: That's the best. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor for morale for putting this forward. I had my grandmother was lucky enough to have her life saved. She had five different kinds of cancer in her life, but I think lung cancer was the third one. And luckily an early screening saved her life. And that was many years ago when outcomes were not nearly as good. So I really appreciate putting this forward. And I just wanted to note on the fourth paragraph, it says, whereas funding for lung cancer research. Oh, nevermind. You got it right. I was reading it wrong. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. As we know, the board of health has been meeting monthly, if not more often throughout this pandemic to address the ongoing issues and various different incoming problems that we are facing in terms of public health. I believe at their last meeting, I don't think there's been a meeting since then, The Board of Health voted to adjust the city's mask regulations, not in city buildings or public buildings, but in private buildings. And a lot of residents reached out talking about how they felt that the communication around why that happened was unclear and insufficient. So I know that Board of Health has regular meetings and I'd like them to make sure that this is on the agenda so that they can A, just assess the conditions in the city right now and what they think the regulation should be from a public health perspective. But also I think especially talk about how to explain the decision they're making to the residents of the community. The day that the decision came out, there was a front page story in the globe saying the cases were rising very quickly. The explanation from the Board of Health said, you know, we're doing this because cases are on the decline but if you looked at the data over the past week the cases have been on the increase. So I just think that that kind of clarity of messaging is really important from the Board of Health just to so that residents understand why decisions are being made, what's the health justification, and knowing that they're going to be safe and protected. So really just want them to make sure to have this conversation or ask them to have this conversation at their next meeting and come out of that with a clear message, whichever way they come down on it. You know, I certainly have an opinion. I'm not a doctor, but I do think that the messaging and the explanation to the community really could stand some review. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Council Member Max.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, it seems like two different... What I mean by reconsider is have it on their agenda and discuss it. If they were to change their decision, that's up to them. But at the very least, I think we deserve a more accurate and clear explanation of the decision that they made.
[Zac Bears]: Well, putting it on the agenda would be considering it. So that's what I mean.
[Zac Bears]: I think it means consider it in a meeting. You know, they, they made a decision last week, reconsider it this week or whatever this month, last month, this month. That's all I'm intending here.
[Zac Bears]: We don't have any authority over this. So it's really just saying, I mean, I'm just getting a lot of people saying, why did you do this? Are my kids safe? Am I safe to go to the grocery store? You know, and I think people deserve a clear understanding of why we're making the decisions that we're making.
[Zac Bears]: I'm certainly open to that amendment. If I may, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: And I would just add, Mr. President, that I did reach out to the health department and, um, you know, basically they said at least in public buildings that they are still certain as it pertains to the mayor and the health department that They would like that that regulation to stay in place so there may be disagreement in between in there, you know, I don't know. But all I can say is, you know, I was reading something very interesting today. when it comes to following the science, right? It's pretty clear at this point that following the science has cultural and political and economic and social determinants that are affecting that. You know, we are at a case rate in Massachusetts. It's back near where we were in the surge, you know, last winter. And if you look at Austria or Germany, right? They're below where we are and they're locking things down. So clearly there's multiple different policy outcomes that depend on a lot of factors, but the thing that I was reading that was most interesting to me and I think hopefully as many of us as possible can agree on this, the death rate for vaccinated people, even during the Delta variant. If you are fully vaccinated, you're under 50, the death rate rounded down to zero, zero per 100,000. So if anything else, the city is running vaccination clinics. Children, I believe five to 11 were just added to the ability to get the vaccine. And it really is protecting people from serious cases of disease in most cases, and certainly from death. And I think that's the most important thing we can think about here. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: You're here with us, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just as someone who raked a lot this weekend, I was disappointed to see how many leaves there were today. So I think we're gonna need a couple extra weeks. Thanks. Councilor Falco.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, if I may. Just to request that paper 21-543 and I believe it's 21. I gotta look for it. 21-593, just that those committee of the whole meeting reports be forwarded to the traffic commission. 21-593 and 29.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. And, you know, of course, the minute I joined the meeting and started watching, I said I wasn't going to say anything, but here I am. And no, what I'm about to say, basically, we had a long and in-depth conversation around the issue of lodging houses, lodgers, and the family slash relatedness piece of things. So I'm just prefacing by saying that it was a long and in-depth conversation. I thought where we landed was that we wouldn't make conditions for the accessory use more restrictive, but we did want to make sure that we weren't having lodging houses in those districts. So, you know, I'm just putting that out there that I agree with a lot of the comments that have been made. And I put this in the chat as well. Look forward to the recommendations of the Community Development Board, but I definitely agree with everyone here that I did not think we were making things more restrictive than the existing ordinance, and I don't think it would be smart of us to do that. at this point through this recodification. And I also agree with the idea that we shouldn't be defining family, that our definition of family should be as open as possible. So I just wanted to put that out there. Thank you all for your work and for reviewing this document. It's complicated and we put a lot of time into it. And I think there are some things that still need to be ironed out, but I look forward to what you all have to say about that. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Similar to Councilor Morell I think you know, working with Chief Gilberti these past two years, he's been incredibly open, communicative, trying to let us know the needs of the department within the constraints that, you know, any department head is under. But I think even more than that, the chief has been the chief more than 80% of my life. And he's still here. And I'm still here. He's still here. And, you know, I'll always remember, we had a weird electrical fire in one of our walls. And I always remember the fire department coming down this quick, you know, very promptly getting an address, saving our home from what I'm sure would have been a disaster. And I, you know, can't say enough about everything that our fire department does to keep our community safe. So I think that's a testament to the chief and to deputy chief Friedman. And I look forward to working with deputy chief Friedman when he becomes a chief. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Chair, Mr. Councilor Bears. Thank you, Mr. President. And I'll be as quick as I can on this, but I just want to drive home the point. When we're talking about the plates, when we're talking about the paving schedule, we're talking about any of this. There were plates 300 yards up the street a year ago, and we said, can you make them not be so loud that people can't sleep at night? It's recurring. You know, we are going back. It's a recurring problem. I think Clerk of the Works is one potential answer here. And I'm totally supportive of that. But at this point, when we're asking them to do something over and over again, they go and do it. And then the next time they go out to do something similar and they don't follow that instruction again, I just want to ask you in the form of an amendment, is there any sort of recourse we have with the department of public utilities, either for additional accountability on oversight from their end on projects like these are specifically on the ever source project. And is there any compensation that the city's entitled to considering the impact that this has had and what I would call the negligence of the contractor working for this company. Because basically I think to Councilor Scarpelli's point, it doesn't feel like a very public to me, not so public utilities in my opinion. These companies are just running roughshod and they're not accountable to the public. So if there's some recourse either through additional accountability that the state can come down, I think it's an addition to whatever we can do as a city in the long run to get these projects working. And to be honest, I think you know, I'm sure that we're not entitled to compensation, but I'd at least like to ask because I think we deserve it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: That's the best. Thank you, Mr. President. I agree with much of what my colleagues have said. I just have a couple of questions for you, Tim. The first ones, and these are meant to be, I think, short, reasonable questions. Do you expect that the issues that have been identified will be addressed by November 15th? And do you think that we will be accepting the project or will it just be a temporary fix and they might have to go back at it next spring?
[Zac Bears]: Sounds to me like you're gonna try to get as much done as you can before November 15th, but likely that there'll be this project, this section of the project you won't be accepting until next season when you know what the winter has done to it.
[Zac Bears]: Great, and then second kind of set of questions, hopefully relatively quick. This MOU came before you were the city engineer. Do you now include regrading in MOUs and will that be included going forward?
[Zac Bears]: Do you put in your project conditions, Tim?
[Zac Bears]: Do you put it in project conditions.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thanks Tim and I agree with you. I think I've brought it up a few times and I think it raised alarms across the board, across the city. So, and I agree we definitely need more resources. On the engagement with these companies, specifically the larger utilities, which we work with regularly. Is it possible for us to send a list of preferred contractors that, I mean, I know these companies are the ones doing the projects, I guess, either A, is it possible for us to say, Eversource, we're gonna hire the people, we're gonna manage the people, and we're gonna bill you? Is that something that we can do? And if not, is it possible for us to come up with a list of vendors that we trust to do quality work and have them choose from those vendors?
[Zac Bears]: All right, thanks. And I appreciate that. Clearly, they're not doing their job. And we're trying to find ways to hold them accountable to do a good job, I think is important. So any way that we can do that without overburdening our own people, I think is important. That's all I had, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: What's the best? Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you and my colleagues for putting this on the agenda. It's definitely been something I've heard a lot about. I did connect the residents with Mr. McGibbon and Director Hunt and the building commissioner and representatives of the fire department. Just in terms of an update that I did get from them, The project, well, this is quoting Director Hunt's email. We spoke with the project manager today, this was yesterday, and he let us know that they are halfway through blasting. They've done 22 days of blasting, and they're expecting 20 more. I know that's not happy or welcome news, but I wanna be honest about the project. And everyone involved has said that the property owners do have a right to do this. So while it is being controlled and monitored, it is, at the end of the day, allowed under under what we allow here at Metro.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I agree with my colleagues entirely. I mean, I think, number one, and I don't know what they're doing now at this point, but if it's a Monday morning, put a sign out in front of the project, we're going to be blasting Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. I mean, it's not that complicated, and that's a low-tech solution these days. You know, a lot of people drive by a lot of people walk by and if they're new every week to look at the schedule, or if the schedule is being emailed out through in a butters committee or whatever other element I think that would be really helpful. The second piece of this, just because residents did bring this up as part of the questioning around this, and I did hear from the city engineer that they are going to have the design done and, you know, redoing the sidewalks and adding the sidewalk along the section of Winthrop Street that currently does not have sidewalk and that should be done next spring. So I know it's a little bit off the topic of blasting, but as it relates to this project and the Eversource project, there should be some pretty significant improvements coming up on Winthrop Street within the next year.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's the yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I'm talking about both both sides of the street.
[Zac Bears]: We said regarding curbstone from Wildwood to Playstead, we are pursuing options to expand the current scope of planned sidewalk improvements. We don't have a definitive project. The improvements will be taking on the sidewalk gap from the gas station to Smith Lane. The improvements will be taking place in the spring before restoration activities begin. So we are planning on lining this up before that happens. I'm hoping not too much design is needed.
[Zac Bears]: That's from Tim.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, Mr. Clark, if you could reflect my request, they put up a sign with a weekly schedule as an amendment.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilor Falco for putting this on the agenda. School committee member Ms. Stone and I had been talking to Mr. Maloney and some other folks at Medford High School, just because we've been getting a lot of complaints about the condition of the field. It's obviously in poor condition, the rubber is all over, you know, taking over the turf, if you will. And he assured us that they had a, I don't know if it was a plan in place, but that it would be addressed soon. So I appreciate you putting this on the agenda because it really needs to happen ASAP. This is about two months ago that Mia and I were asking about it and it still hasn't been done.
[Zac Bears]: And Mr. President, quite frankly, you know, the conditions in the gym, it's a little separate from the pool, but the conditions in the locker rooms for students going to PE classes, pretty dismal as well. So I don't know if it's an issue across the whole backside of E building or whatever it might be, but it's pretty rough. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, just early voting is tomorrow Wednesday from 8.30 to 7.30 and Thursday from 8.30 to 4.30 and on election day polls are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. The resolution is pretty self-explanatory. The vast majority of the student age population of the Roberts School lives north of Fellsway West. The Roberts School is south of Fellsway West, and you have a lot of students and families crossing that street every day. As a resident of Fellsway West, I can tell you that people speed down our street very regularly, going as fast as 35, 40 miles an hour. There have been a lot of near misses, a lot of close calls. with elementary school students who are you know, facing risk every day, just trying to go to school. We do have Safe Routes to School and other projects that are underway to make that stretch safer. But in this specific case, I think it would be really good to have a crossing guard over at, on Fellsboy West, at one of the, maybe one of the new crosswalks, just to allow for safe passage for all of these students to the Roberts School. And I would move approval pending discussion. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I'll be brief, because I know you have things you want to say too. Certainly I support what Councilor Caraviello said, there should be some sort of emergency addressing the issue. But as you know, that'll be a short-term fix because it's a serious problem. And I just want to add context, and I appreciate the context that Councilor Marks added earlier. If we're talking about drainage and new sidewalks on the road, we're talking about a full rebuild, right? We're talking about a full rebuild of that stretch. That's in the millions of dollars, you know, if we're going into the catch basins. And just to provide you context, and I know, because it's an important discussion that we're having as a community, we just had a report issued, roads and sidewalks report, that says we have over a hundred million dollars in roads and sidewalk backlog just to get up to to a standard level. Our road repair budget is about, and I think road and sidewalks together, it's about a million to a million and a half dollars a year. So it's a budget issue. It's a resources issue. And when we talk about neglect, It's neglect all over the city for decades where we've been deeply underfunding this question of safe roads and sidewalks. So I just wanted to put that figure out there. So you understand, we have a huge problem across the city. We're putting, you know, if we have the budget we have now, we'll solve it in a hundred years. And as we know, things are gonna get worse. You know, that's not, we're never gonna, a hundred years, we'll never solve that problem. So it really is a huge budget question of what the city is doing to address this massive backlog of road and sidewalk issues. So I certainly support an urgent fix to try to get one foot deep sinkholes in front of homes, obviously, and having a site visit to see what we can do. But the real question is this broader question of how are we going to fix hundred plus million dollars of road and sidewalk backlog that's gone neglected for many decades. So I just want to put that out there.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Mr. President, I would just second Councilor Caraviello's motion on the emergency fix by the end of the week.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Assembly affirmative, motion passes. Mr. President, motion to take paper 21-548 off the table for its third reading.
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: If I could further amend that. Oh, sorry. You can go ahead. I'm sorry. I'll just go really quickly. If we could post the red line copy online, as well as the summary when we get it. And I, I'm totally in agreement with you. I think we might've asked Mr. Brodsky to do that at the committee of the whole meeting. So it should be, maybe it's to be done more quickly. So I'm hoping that both of those can be posted online. That's it. Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, motion to suspend the rules to take paper 21-5-5-1.
[Zac Bears]: It's the communications from city officers.
[Zac Bears]: That's fine with me. While we're under suspension.
[Zac Bears]: Ms. Gale? Yes. I think actually plan A is nine words and plan B is eight words. So I think we've just been, we've been referring to them.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Sorry. My apologies.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry about that, my apologies.
[Zac Bears]: A and C really, but yes.
[Zac Bears]: I think this is a smart program. I know that the number of people who use it is pretty low and I have run into several residents in 50,000 in Medford. is not, not a big income anymore these days. Um, and I know I've talked to several people who, um, want to take advantage of this program and, and, you know, maybe their pension or their social security is a little bit more than $50,000. Um, so I think it makes sense to, uh, to tie it to the, to the maximum allowed by the state circuit breaker tax credit. So that's why I would move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm happy to withdraw my motion, but I do just want to say that about 25 minutes ago, we were talking about the fact that we're spending a dollar per household per year on rat control. So if we want to talk about our priorities and what we're doing as a city, and our city budget to do more with less every year, every year, every year. I understand the pressures. I understand that there are a lot of people in this city who need help. I think we need to have every tool in the toolbox on the table because it is meeting priorities. It's taking a hundred different things and trying to figure out How do we move the city forward? How do we do it without negatively impacting people the best way we can? But when we're talking about 2.5% per year, which is the limit right now, right? That's the tax limit that the state has enforced on us. It's below inflation. It's below the inflation and the health care costs that the city pays every year. It's below the inflation and the salary costs that the city pays every year. We have $100 million street and sidewalk backlog, but we have a fire headquarters that needs to be built. We have a high school that's falling apart. So if we're going to talk about, you know, when talking both sides of our mouths, we need to talk about what are we doing to address the long-term trends and issues in this city that people want to see fixed. We get what we pay for, and that's the result. We're living with the result. We live with $100 million street and sidewalk backlog that I hear about every day. So if you ask seniors, how can we give you options? How can we give you help to keep the city more affordable? And you're saying, well, you know, we can do this deferment, we can do an exemption. I talked about an owner occupied exemption, which I think can help a lot of people. is the solution or the opposite to say your sidewalk's not gonna be safe for you to walk down, that you're gonna have someone in a wheelchair falling out of a wheelchair because the sidewalk is broken or the street is broken or you can't cross the street because there's a 50-year-old light? I mean, so if we're gonna talk about the needs and priorities of this community and the budget that we have versus the budget that we deserve, we need every tool in the toolbox on the table. I'm withdrawing my motion. I'm more than fine to talk about with the solicitor and figuring out how to make this work. But on the larger picture and the larger puzzle, it can't just be telling residents, do more with less, do more with less, do more with less, or telling city staff, do more with less, do more with less, because that's what we have right now, and it hasn't worked. DPWs at half staff, a third of what it should be. City departments are all over the place with half as many people as need to be there. to get the job done, that's a major issue too. And we need to look at it holistically. We need every piece of the puzzle. We need every tool in our toolbox. I agree we should have more commercial development. How are we gonna do that? I agree that we should be helping people who are in need. And whether it's five people or 5,000 people, we should do that. But at the end of the day, do more with less leads to the results that we've gotten for a long time, which is we don't have the infrastructure, the services, or the buildings that people wanna see, that people deserve to provide basic services. So that's a piece of this puzzle as well. And if we're going to talk about it, we have to talk about the whole thing. And I don't think we should be leaving anything on the, on the sideline when we're talking about how to solve the problems that people in this city want to see solved. Thank you. Councilor Morell.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President? Council Bass. And to that point exactly, one of the questions I asked when we discussed it, well, if we know how many are above the break-even and we know how many seniors live in those units, how many below the break-even and how many seniors live in those units? And this zero-sum game is killing us. I don't disagree. The state has set our laws. They've said, you know, these are your rules. It's zero-sum. Somebody does more, somebody does less. I'd be happy for us to find an alternative and ask the state to let us do it. You know, we could be talking about progressive rates, we could be talking about a graduated rate system, but at the end of the day, what you just said, if there's 4,000 above, you know, that means there's as many as 11,000 below, given how many structures and households there are in the city. And if we're talking about what Councilor Marks is talking about, which is helping the people who are closest to the edge, Maybe that's part of the answer. So if everything's zero sum, then we're going to be putting our wheels through the mud and not going anywhere. And that's the position that state law has decided to leave us in. So at a certain point, I don't think people are going to say, well, you know, that's it. That's the answer. It's zero sum. And we just got to sit here and, uh, you know, twist in the wind until somebody comes and saves us. I think we need to have a plan to address these problems, to assess our needs and meet those needs.
[Zac Bears]: You know, people elect us to make hard decisions, Mr. President. People elect us to make difficult decisions. And we make them every day.
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: So Mr. President, what about the impact on export? Tell me. He said
[Zac Bears]: No? I'm so sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We may actually have already asked for this. I'm not a hundred percent sure, but if you'd be so amenable to having an amendment that we get a specific update on the parking department and the status of hiring in that department. I know that's included in here, but I think it's important given what Councilor Knight said about that being a new department. We're two months, two and a half months away from shifting over to city managed parking enforcement. That's why I would like to have that in there.
[Zac Bears]: If you don't mind, Mr. President, I just have a question. Is it one, are they digging in one area or are they moving around?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And over two weeks, they're digging in the same spot.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Murray, to be honest, we've had probably 10, 15 resolutions since I've been on the council asking, why isn't the Winthrop street project getting done? Why, you know, we've had issues around this, around this issue. And I think we've pushed You know, you're bringing it to us again. I'm sure one of us, if not all seven of us, we want to put a motion on next week and say, what the heck is going on with this issue on Riverside Avenue? We have been saying to the police chief. We need Winthrop Street done this year. It's been torn up for five years. We need Mystic Ab done this year. It's been torn up for five years. And there's been delay, delay, delay. We were just talking about the Brooks School. Why are we having these projects not coordinated? Or in this specific case, why is it starting the day that school starts? And we had an issue at Medford High School where there were projects going on as the morning rush was trying to get into Medford High School. I'm hearing you. I agree with you. I think we've been pushing on this issue citywide. And after saying all of that, my caveat here is when we ask, sometimes we don't get an answer and sometimes we don't get the answer we want to hear. And unless someone wants to correct me, we can't order them to do it. So I think I don't want to speak for everybody else, but I think we will try to get answers here and try to make this solution, find a solution to make this better, or at least better next time. But we have been asking those questions and had a very difficult time getting those solutions on promptly. So I just want to be honest with you about that.
[Zac Bears]: We haven't approved that actually. It's still on the table.
[Zac Bears]: Zap, love it. I think I live in the smallest house of anyone here. So thank you for your time.
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information, Mr. President. We do not have the authority to remove a Facebook post from the city's Facebook.
[Zac Bears]: I believe it's any, any, we don't have control over the city to take down a website.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to revert to the regular order of business, please.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to revert to the regular order of business.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, I believe those motions should go on the agenda for next week.
[Zac Bears]: It's clearly marked on the agenda. In that case, I would be happy to vote for the first one if those claims are proven in a court of law.
[Zac Bears]: The First Amendment was specifically designed so that the government would not regulate or limit private speech. We are being asked to censor private speech. It's the exact inversion of the existence of the First Amendment.
[Zac Bears]: We are in the motion. What court of law has determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, or even a preponderance of the evidence, that libel, slander, and defamation has occurred? I can't vote for something that has not been proved in the court of law to the legal standard it needs to be approved by.
[Zac Bears]: I just think it's worth noting that is a Martin Niemoller quote, and the first line of it is, first they came for the socialists. Thank you. Can you name and address of the record, please?
[Zac Bears]: Point of information, Mr. President. Actually, Councilor Morell and I proposed that resolution, and I'm glad that we voted for it.
[Zac Bears]: It hasn't been seconded, actually. I'm sorry? That motion has not been seconded. I would like to make a motion to revert to the regular order of business.
[Zac Bears]: Does it have a second?
[Zac Bears]: It's not in our jurisdiction, so no.
[Zac Bears]: We did not have a second on your motion.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be brief so you can speak, Mr. Marino. I just want to say thank you to Councilor for putting this on the agenda. I know that we are still in the design phase, and then after that, we'll be talking about money. So there's a lot of time to get this right. I think this is a great way to help. Um, and I also think it's long overdue to see car park revitalized as someone who grew up in the neighborhood, hasn't changed much in 25 years. So, you know, I think it's a great opportunity to add some, some new features, but, um, that we have ample time to, uh, to make sure that everyone involved feels good about it. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I've spoken to several residents who, um, you know, just would like to know this information to kind of make a decision on whether they're going to call City Hall or come into City Hall or use other city services. You know, a lot of this also is coming out from many large corporations and municipalities as well. This data is being released and I think it's helpful for everyone to have certainty, especially around this piece around the policies. I think it's good for everyone to know what is the policy of the city? How well is it being followed? And, you know, making sure that that's public. I mean, it is public information, obviously, everything we do is, but making sure that it is posted publicly on the city website. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, just if I may. Councilor Bassett. I believe also we're getting an Something came across our desk that's a new billboard agreement. I believe it's for the same amount. So if possible, I'd like to not only have an understanding of what happened to the money that has already been given to the city, but make sure that we get a report on any future money that comes from the billboard agreement.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Just that the city administration also report on plans for the future funds coming from the billboard agreement.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, move to refer to the Community Development Board.
[Zac Bears]: We have to vote.
[Zac Bears]: Found the records in order, move approval.
[Zac Bears]: people will be eating in the restaurant and so it's going to be mostly takeout delivery. Okay, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I haven't spoken yet because my fellow councilors said everything that needed to be said, but I just want to add that I'm fully in support of this. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. So, you know, I found out relatively recently, we had an art installation that was to open our parks. funded by a Medford resident, funded by the Medford Arts Council. And the idea was to have, you know, discussion-provoking and thought-provoking art installation around the issues of racism and white supremacy. And I was disappointed to learn that That installation had gone up. Again, this was funded with city money approved by our parks commission on multiple occasions. It was installed at a local city park and within a few days it had been torn down. And then it was, I think, crowdfunded again to find the money to print it, install it, put it up again. And once again, it was torn down. And I think, you know, we should thank the artist, a Medford resident here, for the effort to go through this but I also think it's important that we hear from from her and you know what went into this and maybe have some discussions about why this happened multiple times in our community and you know The idea was to have discussions. I think the art installations weren't up long enough for us to have those discussions. So maybe we can have some of them here today. And I know that we do have the artist here to speak on this matter, if we want to hear from her as well. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, if I may. You good with custom marks?
[Zac Bears]: Well, and that that's exactly the question I was going to have is. Why, why wasn't this put out there we get a lot of press releases we have a city newsletter we have things coming out from different departments, you know, pretty much all the time we have social media, you know, this wasn't advertised and I think two things here really speak to me one the fact that it initially wasn't even really talked about initially it wasn't put out. You know, it's a city funded initiative comes from the Arts Council going into our parks, and it's addressing what this council has said is a major priority what the city administration is that is a major priority, and it got no play no advertisement. I didn't know about it if people on this council didn't know about it. And we represent the city we're in City Hall more than more than most other folks than most people didn't know about it. And then the second piece is. we didn't hear about what happened to the installation either. There was no statement, there was no discussion, there was a few sentences of an email. And that's the question I think when you look at both of those, it reads to me as part of the larger problem, which is we say we wanna do something, we say we wanna talk about it, and I think you made this point actually about a year and a half ago, which is we can talk about it, but what are we doing? And the doing piece was never done. And so, I have another resolution on here tonight. We're gonna talk about it in a minute, which is to ask, what have we been doing? But I think what we're hearing here tonight and what we probably knew already is we're clearly not doing enough. And in some cases, we're not doing anything at all. And that is a shame to say the very least, but I think it also means we're not gonna move forward. So I'm just glad that this is out there. I'm glad that we're having a discussion tonight. I hope that other folks are hearing this as well. And I hope, you know, to be to be honest that that we hear more about this in the in the days and weeks to come. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Bears. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to say to Meredith, by the way, you know, I think the Arts Council, we know you're a volunteer body. You're doing what you can. You have the followers that you have. It would be, I think when we were talking about outreach, it's how is the city boosting that? How are we using the resources of the city to get that out there? So I know it maybe came off a little bit as on the arts council. You, we know that you do amazing work and you know, the support for that, I think would have been really additive in this situation. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I did put this resolution on the agenda to further the conversation we had and also to do what we can as a council, I think, You know, as we know, we've had a lot of discussions about the power of the mayor and the administration recently. And it's our job to ask what's going on, what's happening, are the commitments that are being made being followed? So that's the intent of this resolution. And I think just if I may for a moment, you know, one piece of this is conversations and dialogue. And I think that's important. It's important for bringing people together. It's important for changing hearts and minds. And it's important for meeting across differences. And I think there's a lot of value there. And I do want to know what the administration is doing on that front. The other piece of this is policy and change. What are we doing to review city policies to make sure that they don't have disparate impact? What are we doing to review city ordinances and our city budget to see that we're funding, our funding priorities are meeting the stated verbal priorities that we're putting out there. What are we doing when it comes to zoning and housing production and environmental justice and climate change to address racial inequities that cross all of those intersections? So, you know, a piece of this is dialogue and conversation that I think is very, very important. And I think the other piece is the work of government. What are our policies? How are they being reviewed? And I think some of it as well, we've had some meetings as a council in subcommittee. We've had discussions in full council. The mayor's administration facilitated some conversations last year, and that was a good starting point, I think. But again, it was volunteers. It was people scrambling to get people to facilitate breakout rooms. It wasn't like, we were putting together a full plan and saying, here's how we're going to fund it. This is the purpose that it's going to seek. So, you know, I think concreteness is important. I think understanding the outcomes we're trying to achieve is important. And I especially think that paired with good conversation and dialogue must be the real work of looking into, you know, and I think we all know this as well on many fronts, we have many old policies and old forms and old ways that we do things. Maybe we need to take a look at some of those I'm not going to lay out any specifics, I want to hear what what's happening I want the administration to report back on what they've been doing. And I just hope that the answer isn't insufficient. Maybe it will be maybe it won't be. We need to know what the administration is doing on policy. And then I also hope that we as a council will continue to raise these efforts. And to be honest, I think we have brought this up when it comes to zoning recodification, we've had some good discussions. When it comes to the marijuana zoning ordinance, we had some good discussions and put some strong equity provisions in there. We have made some declarations as well. Is it enough? I think maybe we need to do more, but you know, We've taken some steps. I want to hear what the administration steps are. And I'm very hopeful that in the next round of budget discussions, we will have that more clearly outlined in, in both staffing and programming. Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. My intention with this resolution certainly wasn't to have this argument again. But, you know, I think regardless, you know, I do want to amend this resolution to ask when The, if, if it already has been, or when will the diversity director position be posted because I do believe we can have an argument one office two offices we all agree to positions, we certainly agree with that, a full time diversity position and the HR position. Um, so then where we ended up with two offices and two positions and, you know, that's fine because we have the two positions, right? So I wasn't to relitigate that specific question, but I haven't seen whether that has been posted. So my, my amendment is just to request to ask if, or if it has been posted or when it will be posted for the diversity position, I haven't seen it in the list of open city jobs. Um, so that means we still have, well, I guess now we have nobody doing that job. Right, because for a while it was, right. And well, I, you know, at least since the last budget was passed, because, you know, there was a budget that eliminated the position, which I voted against. There's a budget that restored the position, which I voted for. But in any case, I would like to just know that answer to that question. And I'll leave it at that. But yeah, I think we should look forward at what we can do, not what has happened necessarily. in the past few months with city budget discussions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your accuracy. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: The king of Paris Street.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, point of personal privilege, if I may.
[Zac Bears]: I'm sorry to do this to everyone at the end of the meeting, but I'm a little sorry. I just want to make a quick statement, if you'll indulge me. This is just on reference to something I said last week. You know, the word totalitarianism was brought up to describe our form of government. And I made a comment that this is democracy. And I just would like to clarify, because there's been some commentary and speculation about what I was saying, that I was talking about the election. I was talking about who I'm supporting in the local election. And I just want to make a quick point. It actually relates exactly to what General Elasky and Judy Murray have been doing for several decades in this community, which is about democracy and the fact that we're blessed in our country and in our city to have a government of, for, and by the people. that we elect our leaders by majority vote. And if we like them, we can keep them. And if we don't, we can elect somebody else. You know, we've seen a lot of people on television and online making statements and lying to undermine our democratic process. And, you know, occasionally people bring those lies into this room. They throw around words like totalitarianism to describe our democratic process. And it more than frustrates me. I don't know what that beeping is, but Well, I'm gonna wait, or if you take it out of the room, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I won't start over. But I'll just continue to say that it more than frustrates me when people come in here and throw around words like that when we have a democratic system of government. Everyone behind this rail, our school committee, and the mayor was elected democratically by the people. None of us are perfect. We're all going to make mistakes. And I think I know better than most that I'm not always going to get my way. Nobody's always going to get their way. And that's what democracy is about. It's a blessing and a gift handed down to us by the people who came before us that many people have fought for died for on battlefields and in streets across this country. It's our job to preserve that to improve that. and not to decry and undermine that. So when I said last week that this is not totalitarianism and it's an election season, I wasn't speaking in a small and parochial way. I was speaking in a way that's bigger than every one of us and any one of us. We are blessed that every two years at every level of government, we get a peaceful revolution. We get to decide our future and we get to preserve, protect and improve democracy. That's what we all are here to do. That's what I will continue to do as long as the people of Medford allow me to do it. And I just wanted to make that clear to folks online who thought I was making a snide comment when I was actually talking about something much more important than that. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Welcome to the meeting. Thank you for the work that you're doing. I just wanted to ask, I know that one thing that was committed to by the administration over the summer was coming to the council with CAF updates and reviews to make sure that it aligns with the current positions that actually exist in the city. So my two questions are, I think you just answered the first one, but I'll ask it again. These are positions that have existed for a significant period of time, but were never included in the CAF, is that correct?
[Zac Bears]: And are there additional positions that you expect to bring to the council in the future that have existed for a significant period but weren't in the CAF ordinance?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Thanks. And I'd appreciate an email.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just how long was Annie Streetman in that position?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, but prior to this administration.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, just if I may, to my fellow Councilors, I think we're back to requesting to be turned on on the microphone. So when you press the button, you'll have to wait a minute for, I think it might be Cat turning them on right now, actually. I was confused for a second.
[Zac Bears]: I second Councilor Knight's motion.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, there was also one more communication from the mayor, 21-549.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Susan, it's great to see you. Thanks for being here. I'm a very close neighbor at 625 Fellsbite West, and I'm really excited that this project is moving forward. And I also just want to thank Danielle Evans. It's great to see that this funding is not sitting in the housing reserve, but is going to the essential need of approving more affordable housing in our community. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Bears. Just on the word totalitarianism was used and I do want to remind everyone here that this is a democracy and the way that you would address this is through an election and we are currently in an election season. So I just want to put that out there. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just, I'm wondering what the definite, you know, this legal definition of an emergency is, because I do not want our actions to be challenged going forward if this meeting doesn't have appropriate notice. I think what we all want here is a resolution to happen. If we don't notice the meeting and someone says that's not the right definition of emergency, then what we do may not have any effect.
[Zac Bears]: I would move to take it off the table once public participation is concluded.
[Zac Bears]: Appreciate it. Motion to approve, Mr. President. Okay. Any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: I certainly support Council Faco's motion, and I just want to make the point that I think this intersection, A, it's still set up for two-way traffic. There's a, you know, West Street used to be a two-way street. It's still organized in that way. And I just think it's a great example of where you have very wide roads and very poorly designed approaches on each street. I think you could create a lot of public space there. You could have benches, you could have grass. There's a ton of space at that intersection that doesn't need to be used by cars. And I think that would make it a lot safer.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, just before we continue, if the clerk could just note on the record, there's like a 60 minute sound that's been going off all night. It's like a clock ticking time bomb. If we could, yeah, I'm like starting to lose my mind a little bit. So, um, if we could just see if we could get that address.
[Zac Bears]: Um, yeah, I feel like I'm watching the intro to 60 minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. What's the best? I just want to say the same thing. Congratulations to Jeannie and Len on their anniversary and congratulations to Councilor Knight for scooping Councilor Morell on this.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Betz. Thank you, Mr. President. If my colleagues don't mind, I was just down in this area over the weekend. If I could add an amendment also that a traffic calming or a speed bump be installed around the address of 94 Otis Street for similar reasons.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President and Mr. Vice President. I just wanna also congratulate them. I went to elementary school in the area, so I have similar age memories of Amici's, and I just wanna say there's nothing more sincere than the look in Councilor Knight's eyes when he talks about pizza at Amici's, and it makes me happy.
[Zac Bears]: So I wholeheartedly support this.
[Zac Bears]: I'll agree on that.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to thank, thank you, Tom. Thank you to the commission for your advocacy on this. And it is really an essential project. So I'm hoping finally, It seems like maybe all the ducks are in a row to get this done, and hopefully it can start soon. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And Marsha, congratulations on your appointment.
[Zac Bears]: It was a celebration. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, if you're amenable to it, Councilor Morell, I'd also like to just add Mystic River Road to that, basically the same thing that connects with that Rotary A. It's one of the roads that intersects with that Rotary, but there have been issues with that whole stretch all the way up to Duggar Park.
[Zac Bears]: I think, sure, we can go through the representatives, but I think it would be great to have someone from their transportation division working directly with us. I am a resident of a DCR street. You know, we've got a few branches that are dead overhanging, you know, all of our cars and our home, and you call and you don't get a response on that one-on-one basis. I don't get a response. And if I'm not getting a response, nobody's getting a response. So I think that's a great idea.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm tempted to say here we are again. Um, but you know, these are, these are constant issues in our community. We have roadways and sidewalk areas that are really unsafe for a lot of different modes of travel, including people in cars. Um, I was in this area a couple of weeks ago and a resident told me, that their child, and they've put a letter out, this is information that I think they might be sending to us as well at some point, was in the crosswalk, was hit by a vehicle, flipped up into the air, and luckily landed on their hip and not their head. And this is the third incident in the area in recent times. Another one is the reason that there's now the bollards and the repainted crosswalk, which we also approved, I requested, down by the ball fields. But it's an incredibly dangerous stretch of road. I personally have been in an accident on that stretch of road. Luckily, it was car to car. But, you know, the residents really that Summer Street and Winter Street and Winthrop Street intersection is a really tough spot. People make two lines on Summer Street. You can't see if you're turning left. You can't see if you're turning right. People are trying to beat traffic. They speed out and then they're right in the middle of a crosswalk and there's somebody there. It's the same street that Benford High School is on. There's an MBTA bus route on that street. It doesn't have bike lanes, but it's obviously Winthrop Street's a very important thoroughfare in our community. So these are some short-term, I've already spoken with Director Blake about this, Transportation Director Todd Blake, but I wanted to put it on the agenda just so that we voiced our support that we have some of these kind of more short-term mitigation measures, which are the flashing beacons, which we can do for an affordable cost. And then I think really a long-term look at the Winthrop Street corridor around painting, markings, stop signs, and the like, because, you know, once here, again, there was a similar mitigation with the raised crosswalk across from the Wesley Church up by Orchard. Maybe we need to start looking at that all the way down Winthrop Street. just because it's a serious problem. And I was just really glad to hear that this young person was fine. She was up walking. She was like, I'm okay. But it was a recovery period. And luckily it was not a worse injury. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Ferro's issue. I was recently held to task by what I will call bike Twitter. about that Sharrows are sometimes even cause more trouble than they're worth. I'm not saying I'm against them, but I think maybe in addition to what you said, we should get the bicycle commissions. What are their recommendations?
[Zac Bears]: You're a biker, so I defer to you.
[Zac Bears]: One more thing on this, I think, you know, at the end of the day, The issue isn't necessarily the congestion or the rerouting. It's the speed at which the cars are able to travel on the streets. And, you know, we have our 25 citywide. I think Winthrop might be 30 in that area, but, you know, we've got wide roads. We've got, Winthrop's an exception, but, you know, for example, West Street, it's an incredibly wide road. And people just are encouraged to drive quickly down those very wide roads. And I think looking at, obviously, the short-term solutions around paint and all of that, but looking long-term, if we are going to be doing some significant revamping, hopefully, of roads and sidewalks going forward, since we now know we have a multi-, near $100 million backlog of work, we really need to look at the width of our roads.
[Zac Bears]: I've seemed to be working great.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll make this one quick. Highland Avenue in Medford is a MassDOT managed road. There's a lot of speeding going on on that road, even though the speed limit is I believe 30 miles an hour. So, if the transportation director could meet with MassDOT to see if there are mitigation measures. It's a long straight road. There's a lot of school buses and kids who are in that area. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. for I believe at least since January, the state and the MBTA have been undergoing a process to map out the new route for Silver Line 3 extension. If people don't know, the Silver Line is the bus rapid transit service of the MBTA. Currently, I believe the route that they are favoring would take Silver Line Extension and run it almost to Medford and run down 99 in Everett down to Sullivan Square. I think a preferred route for Medford certainly would be to come over to Wellington Station, and there are options for a route that would even go all the way down the Mystic Valley Parkway. to Mystic Avenue and then down Mystic Avenue to Sullivan Station, which I think would be a huge benefit to our community, adding bus rapid transit service in one of the fastest growing areas in the city and an area that is currently, I would say, underserved by the MBTA, as much of our community is. I've also received some communications from residents that they feel like this could help augment the MBTA's continued refusal not to restore the express buses from Medford Square. And I also know that we've had David Walker here for many hours at this point, if he would like to speak after the Councilors are done with discussion. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: And to Councilor Knight's point, I'm certainly in favor of a both and approach. I think given the outlay that this city is paying every year to the MBTA, even if we had fully restored express buses, we're still not getting what we pay for. And I think, you know, with the express buses and then this, this would, if this route were to be coming to existence, I would be fine with them even just extending it to Wellington Station, I think that would be a start. I think the longer route all the way across the city would be really something that's missing, which is a cross city connection from Wellington Station to South Medford to Mystic Avenue, which is something that we don't have right now. But I agree with you. I certainly think it should not come at the expense of restoring the express buses.
[Zac Bears]: I definitely appreciate that concern. I think to be direct, this is a process that's ongoing. They're gonna do a Silver Line extension. There are some options that include Medford and some options that don't. It seems to me that the decision-making process on that is not at least directly tied to the decision-making process on restoring the old lines. And to Councilor Marks' point, I do think we should meet on the T funding issue. I did talk to Representative Garbley about this a bit. the legislature is really gonna need to take action to come up with a long-term solution there. Clearly ridership and office use in the downtown core, which is the main revenue generator for the T for fares, is going to be disrupted potentially forever. I think given the situation, there's gonna need to be a long-term fix there. I certainly hope it doesn't come at the expense of local communities and local contributions. And I think we should advocate and say, We support you addressing this shortfall, not cutting service further, because that's just going to create the downward spiral, right? That's, that's the issue we have now is services down. So let's cut service. And then service is going to go down more because the service isn't there. Um, it's a public good needs to be funded by the public. Um, and I think that the state house certainly has more than enough options to figure out a way to address that. And I hope that we can meet and say, do your job. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And and that is that is why I'm here. It's what is the city administration done to advocate for us here?
[Zac Bears]: This one's pretty self-explanatory. There is an ongoing comprehensive plan process. I think we need to make sure that the city is doing all efforts possible to reach as many residents as possible so that we have input on that comprehensive plan. And I think including an item about that in the mail that's regularly sent out to city residents would be one way to do that. Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Mr. President, if that's the best Councilor Marks and Councilor Parker amenable. I'd also like to ask if we can challenge our assessment in court, or if there's some sort of process to challenge it. Cause I do think the point is. they will, if we were to try to withhold it, they would just, you know, they take it out of what they give us in chapter 70 and all of that before we could even withhold it. So the check is actually not even written by us. It's just subtracted out of what they send us in state aid, I believe is how the process works. So I'm wondering if there may be an alternative to that, but I agree with you in principle, if our services are going down, why is our assessment remaining the same?
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. Council Member Baez. Thank you, Mr. President. I would just request that we move to send this to the public safety subcommittee. I've gotten some messages from folks that they'd like to have kind of a more comprehensive discussion about the area. And I also noticed that there was a hand raised on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: I did see someone raise their hand on Zoom for public participation.
[Zac Bears]: And what's the best. I mean, I don't think I could say it any better than that. The folks have been so involved for a long time. I was only three years old when he started. So, I know a lot of my friends who played baseball and then friends were involved in the community. I've been a part of the event over the years and I've really appreciated it. I'm especially grateful that the Challenger Day will be continuing. I think that's really important. So thank you for your work. Thank you all who are here for your work. And hopefully your next endeavor will be as successful as this one.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Congratulations. I was lucky enough to have a couple of friends at Medford High School who also became Eagle Scouts. And I think at some point I was in, you know, 10 years ago or so I was back in this audience congratulating them. So I know what kind of accomplishment it is. And I think your, your attitude is right on about about community service as well. And all I can say about Bunker Hill, I think that's a smart choice. And if you do two years there, and you do well, you can transfer to a public university, know what you wanna do, get out in four, and get a good degree. So I like that. And if you have any questions about that whole process, I've been involved with it for a few years now. So my contact information is on the website.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk, just FYI, there's something going on with your microphone.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to make sure you can see, because I saw you went to press it.
[Zac Bears]: Roll call.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Through you to Coordinator Gale, my first question is on the mail-in voting. Are we or is the Secretary of State's office going to be sending a postcard out to let people know that they can apply for a mail ballot?
[Zac Bears]: That's helpful, yeah, and I have full confidence in the mail process and the votes being all of that. I think it's the question of do people know that it's still an option? So I'm glad to hear that there's gonna be some efforts made. I think for the, I guess my question, then I'll make my comment. How, is there a date, can I request a mail ballot today for these elections?
[Zac Bears]: All right, that's great. Yeah, and I would just maybe suggest, I know, It may incur a cost, maybe even a pretty significant cost, but letting voters know the options, maybe via a postcard or a robocall of some kind, I think would be helpful. Just because the law, I mean, it's right here. This came to us August 12th, the law was signed July 29th. There's kind of been some back and forth. There's some concerns that some options may not be available. So I do think just to make sure voters know all their options, that could be helpful.
[Zac Bears]: Fantastic. And then on early voting, I personally I hear Council marks on the low turnout, but this is the first election I can remember in many, many years where we've had a preliminary election for the office of mayor. So I think that may significantly increase turnout from a preliminary elections in the past. So I personally would like to maintain the four days of early voting for the preliminary election. I know that I respect your view on it, and I understand that it would save about $1,000, but I just don't think we know what turnout might be and having three candidates is is unusual. Custom rope.
[Zac Bears]: Are we voting?
[Zac Bears]: I would like to vote on the amendment first and then vote on the... Do you want to sever?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I would like to vote on the amendment proposed by Councilor Marks and then vote on the final paper, depending on... And then that version of the final paper will be determined on the vote of the amendment, if that makes sense.
[Zac Bears]: No.
[Zac Bears]: Motion fails.
[Zac Bears]: No, I'm now moving to approve.
[Zac Bears]: I move to approve.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve all nine days of early voting, four for the preliminary, five for the general.
[Zac Bears]: That's fine with me.
[Zac Bears]: If I may, Mr. President, I actually took a page from the book of Councilor Marks on that one. And my resolution was that the preliminary election be discussed. And I just wanted to feel out the room to see if there may be interest in not having a preliminary election. and clearly there was not. So we discussed it. We decided against it. I think if we're going to have the election, we should make it as flexible and open as possible. So that's my position, right?
[Zac Bears]: We discussed it and decided it was a bad idea and I stand by it.
[Zac Bears]: But if I were to move to reconsider before the end of the meeting, would we be able to take up the vote again at this meeting?
[Zac Bears]: I may end up on the prevailing side.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve.
[Zac Bears]: Just to clarify, the CD board wants us to amend this to make sure the terms are staggered?
[Zac Bears]: As amended.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent, motion passes. Mr. President, motion to suspend the rules to take paper 21-509.
[Zac Bears]: All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: It's the petition, the license.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Bears. Ellen, do you think that if we were to just decide on some sort of nominal flat fee, that that would be an irresponsible decision or would it be, you know, Do you really feel like we have to go the route of getting this area appraised?
[Zac Bears]: My understanding is it's a unique situation. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, you can finish your sentence Mr. Salama when you talk to Tim.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Salaam, you mentioned West Medford. When was that project completed?
[Zac Bears]: A couple of years ago. That's when that ramp was installed? Yes. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Well, that should have... West Medford is part of Medford. So what was the process when that project was approved?
[Zac Bears]: All right, and I mean, I meant also to my fellow councilors, did that come before the council?
[Zac Bears]: I would be fine having, I mean, I think,
[Zac Bears]: We don't have Mr. President, I would say, you know, number six, I would be fine with it be five years or something.
[Zac Bears]: I would add, if possible, to the motion that, I don't know, Engineer McGivern asked us to come up with the renewal period and the fee, I would actually ask that he make a proposal for what might be reasonable, and we could consider that as part of sending it back. With the assessor. Right, right.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Bass. And in terms of the sidewalk, the new sidewalk has not gone in yet, so is that correct?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, but if it has, and you have to dig it up, you'll replace with concrete, correct? Yes, definitely, we will. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. As folks may or may not know, one of the fastest growing unionized industries in the state is the medical and recreational marijuana industry. Um, several of our local unions have been, uh, have been going out and organizing workers at these various locations. Um, one thing that has been included in many agreements between municipalities and the owners or license holders of these facilities is that the license holders will not actively, will not try to oppose the unionization effort if it comes to their shop. So that is the request here of the Cannabis Advisory Commission and the city to include language in our agreements that ask these license holders not to oppose unionization efforts at these facilities.
[Zac Bears]: host community agreements have been agreed to, because they would have to have been approved.
[Zac Bears]: But that's for the licensure. The host community agreements are the, when they decide on the final three applicants, then they would begin negotiations around the host community agreements. So that's my understanding of the process.
[Zac Bears]: I would move approval.
[Zac Bears]: I've made a motion to approve, but whatever happens happens. There's no second on it, so.
[Zac Bears]: I'll withdraw the motion.
[Zac Bears]: No, I was just withdrawing my motion to approve. So if there's another motion on the floor.
[Zac Bears]: No, if there's a motion to refer to the solicitor.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to refer to the city solicitor for an opinion.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. There have been many city-owned trees that have been cut down or removed with pretty short notice. I did receive some communication from the tree warden that the forestry department generally does not decide to remove a tree until one to two days before they remove that tree. And there was also a mention of emergency removals with National Grid. I have no problem if there's an emergency with something needs to be removed. But you know, I do think that abutters, I've run into abutters, there's a tree right in front of their house, they've planted their whole garden based around that tree, they've, you know, put a table out there based on that tree, and then they come out one day and there's a sign, and the next day the tree's gone. And that doesn't seem like enough due process, or at least enough of a notification for abutters that something that provides shade and that they've come to rely on is going to be removed. So I would ask that there at least be more formal notice and the ability of, you know, residents, if a tree is going to be removed to come to us or come to the tree warden with some advanced notice, I put in 14 days because I felt that was reasonable. So it is just a request that they provide a little bit more time. I certainly have no problem with emergency removals happening if they're an emergency, but if this is something that's being pre-planned and doesn't need to happen in 48 hours or 24 hours, I really do think that residents should get more notice when a tree is going to be removed.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know personally if it existed in the past, but I think that's exactly the kind of practice I would like to see in terms of notification, that a notice go out and give people due notice that something may be removed. I mean, I've had residents say, I walked out one morning and my tree was gone. It's been there for 30 years and now there's no tree.
[Zac Bears]: In subcommittee?
[Zac Bears]: I would be happy to refer this paper to the same Committee of the Whole and have that discussion as part of the larger pre-ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: All right, so all right, we've been here a while. I don't want to belabor it. So my motion is to refer to committee of the whole for discussion along with the tree ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: I withdraw.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we've discussed it enough. Okay. 21495.
[Zac Bears]: I can look on my phone.
[Zac Bears]: I believe the, well, we have plenty to do. The resolution was that this council would contact the legislature and say that we support the legislation that has been filed. And I believe the issue at the time was that bill numbers had not been issued yet, that kind of thing. So it was just kind of still on a docket number, a temporary number. Bill numbers have now been issued and we put a 90 day shot clock on the paper that the subcommittee would meet in 90 days to discuss whether we thought it was reasonable for this council to support such a legislation. So that's, I believe, where we left it.
[Zac Bears]: That was not my motion to send it to subcommittee, certainly.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Well, I mean, I'd be happy to file it again.
[Zac Bears]: Well, that was, I mean, it could be a five minute meeting to say, yes, we should send our note of support to the legislature that we think this is something that we should have. Just on the substance of it, I do think we need more authority and uniformity in state government and state statute to provide clarity around pilot agreements. And we know the pilot agreements are very important to the city bringing in close to $5 million a year in revenue of our $200 million. So that's why I put it forward is the state doesn't have a good framework for this. and this bill would provide a new state framework that then we can operate under. The request was just that we support these bills and ask that our delegation advance them in the legislature.
[Zac Bears]: I don't want to get into the minutiae, but the legislation that is proposed in the State House would not apply to churches or social service organizations. So there would not be mandatory payments for either of those groups.
[Zac Bears]: I believe he may have been not exempt. He had not gotten that wrong.
[Zac Bears]: If you read the legislation, it explicitly includes a specific category of nonprofits, which is the large educational and medical institutions. and excludes the church's religious organization.
[Zac Bears]: I believe I did when I proposed the original.
[Zac Bears]: I would be happy to. In any case, on your other point, which is the local action that we can take, I do have proposed ordinance language, and I would love to have a committee of the whole on what we could create as a local ordinance around pilot agreements.
[Zac Bears]: The Mayor does. Yes, this would create a framework, and actually I have had several discussions with the Mayor and residents on this.
[Zac Bears]: I withdraw.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Yeah, the clippership, it's approved. Right.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. We have in this specific area, it's kind of right in between the garage where Tufts Police is and the heating and cooling building. There are three poles in the sidewalk right next to each other. One of them is holding a streetlight. The other two seem to be holding phone lines, electric lines, that kind of thing. The one holding the streetlight is dead center of the sidewalk, and you have to basically go in, out, up and around. And I don't even know if you could fit a wheelchair through there. So that pole really needs to be removed. All of those services could be consolidated onto one pole that would not obstruct the access. And especially with the Greenline extension coming in, you know, that's gonna be a very highly trafficked area. So I would hope that with the construction and everything going on, that this is something that could be addressed quickly. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President, this is our strong crew working on snow removal ordinance. Thank you to Councilors marks and Falco for the continued work. we got to, I believe, an agreement on the first section of language for our new ordinance. We requested that the building commissioner and the city solicitor provide language around the enforcement and fee structure for snow removal going forward. And we also received, you know, communication from local 25 and Vice President Steve South regarding the priority sidewalk program and whether that would be outsourced by the city administration or whether it would be done by union workers. And we requested that the union and the city administration meet together to discuss the priority sidewalk program. My hope is that, A, that that meeting has happened, and that the other requests that we made of city staff on this issue have been fulfilled, and we can hopefully meet again relatively soon. I would guess at this point, probably in the month of September, to at least advance this further, if not, hopefully have the answers we are seeking, and maybe move this, report this out to the larger body.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. If I may also just, I know it's in the agenda, but our September meeting is moved to the 21st instead of the 14th. So we will be meeting the 21st of September.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. Councilor Best. I'm reading it as add these new classifications and then remove the positions from the old classifications. It looks like there's 18A, 15A, So I'm reading it as it's creating new classifications for these specific positions and then removing those positions from the former classifications.
[Zac Bears]: I would assume so. I think it's a PW21A is a new classification. Correct. And these positions are now in PW21A. but if there are positions that are in PW21 that aren't included here, they're staying the way they are. Basically, it's moving these positions out of existing caps into new caps. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Correct.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Biss. Thank you, Mr. President. Tim, just two questions for you on these conditions six and seven. Do you have any recommendation to the council as to what a reasonable fee would be or, you know, renewal period or expiration?
[Zac Bears]: And in terms of the sidewalk that they are replacing in addition to the ramp, is that just gonna go up to the limit of the sidewalk next to their building on Yeomans and Spring Street, or is it going any farther than that?
[Zac Bears]: So the sidewalk panels that are being replaced in addition to the installation of the ramp are just on Spring Street.
[Zac Bears]: It says in here that 108 square feet of sidewalk is being replaced as well. Is that just the sidewalk adjacent to the ramp on Spring Street?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I'm gonna have to find it. This is a long one, but somewhere in here it says that sidewalk is being, additional sidewalk. Cracked panels are being replaced as well, adjacent to the ring, number 11. Yeah, number 11.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, okay, gotcha.
[Zac Bears]: A million, two million?
[Zac Bears]: I do have a quick question. Would this be an annual fee or a one-time fee? Or is that in our purview as well, Tim?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Andy Milne was personally, and no offense to any of my other wonderful teachers at Medford High School, was my favorite teacher at Medford High School. I took AP US History with him in 11th grade. And I would say that's one of the reasons that I'm sitting right here right now. So I could go on and on about how much a wonderful class it was, that he was a great advisor and person to talk to when you had questions or were thinking about college or your future. But I think his record speaks for itself 22 years at Medford High School, hundreds and hundreds of students that he personally, not only taught but sought to advising and helping. And I think he speaks. in his role to the great faculty and educators that we have here in Medford. So he deserves our congratulations on his retirement and wishing him the best going forward. Thank you. That's a strong member of the union. The chair recognizes Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Bears. Thank you, Mr. President. I echo the statements of my colleagues and certainly we have big shoes to fill. I've been through two budgets now. One of them I voted against, one of them I voted for, and I don't think Alicia held it against me that I voted against the first one, but incredibly informed and informative person. And I don't think, you know, I don't think people understand the personal sacrifice that she made over many years, especially these past two years to keep the city moving. And it's a huge loss in that respect. So, I hope that a position can be filled soon, but I think it'll be difficult to find someone with such aptitude as Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin. So I wish her the best and congratulate her on her new position.
[Zac Bears]: Just, and if you haven't figured out yet I understand it would both polling places be in the gymnasium, they would ideally they would be in different rooms.
[Zac Bears]: That's the best. I'm sure you're already there, but just a recommendation that any two one signage say former St. Francis location, that'll help.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. One of the lucky blessings of youth is that I am not often here putting condolence resolutions on the agenda. And I think, you know, when I am in that position, it's very often a very sad situation. And all I can say is that Joseph Joey Blasetti as a 26 year old Medford resident passed away unexpectedly. And suddenly he's a musician, comedian, a friend to very many people made a huge impact on many thousands of people here in Medford and across our area and across the country. I'm close friends with his sister Brittany and friends with his sister Lauren. And there's a lot of people, his parents, friends, many people in the city mourning and grieving his loss. So I just wanted to take a moment to recognize it and hold a moment of silence and let everyone know as well. there will be services at St. Joe's, Saturday, July 24th at 11 a.m. So thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. If we could add to that message that the city administration posts these on the city events calendar on the city website as well.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, is that the issue? Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, I believe we're at a roll call vote, and I think we should just take the vote.
[Zac Bears]: We're already in the middle of a vote.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, I believe the city for a very long time had a director of personnel at which conducted many of the duties that we're talking about now for the chief people officer. I think the cap 19 is more than an acceptable rate of pay considering there was a comparable position that was in an even higher cap previously. I think we should just Point of information? I would think we should have this.
[Zac Bears]: I believe there were people who were in that position after the fact of Richard Lee who did not do all the budget work and that there was a budget CTO position at the same time.
[Zac Bears]: If I may.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, three weeks ago it was we shouldn't be putting things in the budget if there's no calf. I think we should follow the counter principle was we shouldn't be putting these in the calf. if there's no chance they're gonna be in the budget. That's just my position on it. I'm happy to discuss it more in committee of the whole, but- Point of information.
[Zac Bears]: If things get to that point, that's fine. I'm just saying, if we're trying to align the CAF with the budget and make sure that boxes are checked on both sides. We should at least, you know, let's not start on a position where we're in conflict.
[Zac Bears]: I believe the question I asked was what the person who's in the position that currently exists continue to be paid the same way that they've been being paid and continue to do the work until the new position is filled.
[Zac Bears]: Right, well, I wasn't necessarily specifying the source, but the amount of money.
[Zac Bears]: Right, well, that was my understanding is that the mayor said that they would continue to be paid.
[Zac Bears]: Right, I'm just saying that the final CAF would read, CAF 11, assistant city solicitor slash hearing officer, assistant city clerk, and elections coordinator.
[Zac Bears]: Discussions on amendment F. Motion to refer to committee of the whole since amendment E was also referred to committee of the whole.
[Zac Bears]: Do we need to vote on the whole thing?
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, motion to approve amendments A, B, D as amended.
[Zac Bears]: I think we should just, excuse me, if you don't mind, I think we should dispense of these in a reasonable amount of time.
[Zac Bears]: My motion was to approve amendments A, B, and D as amended.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, motion to take paper 21-387 off the table for third reading.
[Zac Bears]: Not ripping yet.
[Zac Bears]: I found them adequate and I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Bears. Thank you, Mr. President and Patrick. I mean, I don't think we can say enough about how far above and beyond you've gone in your entire service, you know, running community media for an entire community by yourself, you know, up until just a few months ago, I think, and what you've done for us in the pandemic. And personally, I can't thank you enough for making me look good on camera. So I really look forward to seeing what you can do. and hopefully building a budget that could attract someone like you back here in the future.
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to thank you. Um, counsel Councilor Knight Councilor Marks, uh, send my condolences to the family. Uh, Mr. Sweeney was an uncle of one of my close friends and I know that they are still in mourning. So sending my best to them. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Marks for bringing this forward. I certainly don't disagree that a standard process and procedure that would allow for, you know, the renaming of any municipal facility or building or I think we might even want to outline everything we mean here because he meant in corners and streets and that kind of thing would be good. My only concern goes back to what you were saying about who has the authority around school facilities. I think I could support this if we didn't include the school facilities. And I think whatever we come up with for the city side could easily be taken up as a model by the school committee to use for school facilities. I just have concerns around the legal authority as outlined and I wouldn't want I wouldn't want the city solicitor to come back and say, well, you don't have the authority around school buildings, X, Y, Z. So that's my main concern here. Other than that, I agree that having a strong process with clear outcomes, certainly, hopefully we'll bring at least more people together. I don't know if we're ever going to get everyone to agree to every renaming, but I think it's important that we try. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Perhaps can we ask two questions instead of one then? Could the city ask the city solicitor for a ruling on whether the council through ordinance can craft a process for the naming of a school building? And then maybe the second one could be a further resolve that the city council ask the city solicitor for an example of a process for the naming of any municipal building or facility, something like that. I just wanna make sure we ask both questions so we get an answer on each of them.
[Zac Bears]: If I may, but that's exactly, you kind of outlined exactly my point, which is that it's, can we do this? And can we do this specifically for schools? If we ask this question, I think we've gone through this before where we've asked a question and the language hasn't been quite right, and we've gotten kind of a wavery answer. I'm just concerned that if we ask the question this way, the answer might be no, because the school committee has authority over schools instead of, you know, no, you can't do it for schools, but yes, you can do it for municipal buildings. So I guess I would just amend the paper to ask that the city solicitor specifically rule on whether we can craft a process for schools, municipal buildings, or for both.
[Zac Bears]: And that's the, I'm not disputing the intent at all. Just, I want to get the answer that we're looking for. Just that the city solicitors specifically issue a ruling on whether the council through ordinance can craft a process for naming schools, school buildings and facilities, municipal buildings and facilities, or both of those categories.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just trying to ask two questions.
[Zac Bears]: It feels like I'm nitpicking. I'm really just going back to the what you stated.
[Zac Bears]: I hear you. It's going back to the question that we asked around the authority. Now I'm blanking on it. the disagreement between the solicitor and the administration on a legal question on the cast. And we asked a question and the answer came back, well, maybe, and now there's this dispute. I just wanna be really specific. And that's the only reason I'm making this point.
[Zac Bears]: Same, same as well. It just, yeah. After the word naming of any school building or facility, municipal building or facility or both.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. So the purpose of this resolution is pretty literal. I was hoping we could have a discussion about the 2021 municipal preliminary election. As many residents know, from time to time during municipal election season, the city holds preliminary elections. In recent years, I believe they have eliminated effectively one candidate out of a pool of 15 or 16 or two from 16 for city council. It's a very costly exercise. I believe it costs upwards of $50,000 of taxpayer money. And the outcome is really saying, well, you know, we're gonna have you pick from 14 candidates instead of 15 candidates. I think if that's the case, it may not be the best use of taxpayer dollars. I also think there's an argument that letting everybody run in the general election is a good thing. We're not eliminating one or two candidates from the outset. And I'm just interested into what my other fellow Councilors think about potentially filing a home rule petition to cancel the preliminary election and just allow all candidates to run in the November general election. One other reason I bring this up is significant legislative uncertainty around the option of mail-in voting. It seems like the legislature may not pass a law by the time necessary to allow mail ballots for the preliminary election, but then may do it in time for the general election. So then we're talking about a different set of rules for each election. And I think it may just be better given the conditions that we're operating under to have the elections office focusing on making sure that the November election runs smoothly. Those are just some points for consideration. I'm interested into what my other fellow Councilors think, and hopefully we can maybe take some action on it tonight.
[Zac Bears]: And this is exactly what I was looking for by putting it on the way I did. I just wanted to hear from everybody, hear some honest opinions about it. I think the reason I put it on now is also in the timing question. We start to run out of time in terms of getting it out there. And it seems to me like just given the way that our election calendar is currently structured, we're probably not going to be comfortable enough. I mean, there's no way we're going to get a home rule out. you know, in early August, have it passed by the legislature and back to us by August 13th. So I would be comfortable meeting at some point in the future to discuss maybe the election calendar or how this could work in future elections. And I'm sure potentially if there is ever a city charter review, it could come up during that process as well. But I didn't wanna come in here guns blazing with my position on it. I just wanted to see where the council stood on it because I think to Councilor Mark's point, maybe we could really boost the turnout for November with that extra money, put out the A-frames, do more of that outreach. And I just want to try to think creatively in the future about how we can get more people engaged in municipal elections. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'll move to receive and place on file.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Bears. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Director Nutley-Benjamin. I just had one question. What's our free cash balance going to be after these transfers? 7,000,381,098.92. And just to follow up, are we going to be adding to that at all in the fiscal 22 budget?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. I'm glad that we're a priority. Councilor Best. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Madam Mayor, for being here. just two questions on the law department or one question one comment with the way that the budget is structured now, KP law will be reporting to Kim stand to the city solicitor. Okay. And then I don't disagree with you councilor and on the principle of having in-house folks from the discussion I remember having with solicitor Stanley here, the issue was that there's not enough, but she feels like if she were to do it in the house, she would need two full-time city solicitors. The 81,000 is not enough. to hire two full-time solicitors. And therefore she feels like in order to get the workload complete, this is the best arrangement of funds. So that's what I heard from the solicitor herself. And I think that's what I'm gonna go with on this one. That's just my position on it. I definitely would hope that the administration and the solicitor's office, the law department would advocate to create a plan to have in-house, two in-house assistants to the solicitors or whatever amount of in-house staff is needed accomplish the work. But I understand that that's not possible at the current time. So that's, that's where I am on this.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I was just going to say, I want to second what Councilor Council President Garabella said that having a direct line from us to KP Law, I think is the important thing here. I understand what you're saying about having a consistent contact point. And if that person could then refer us to the bank of different specialties, I think that process I think is really valuable to us. And again, my hope would be in the long run that we would transition back to a more in-house model. If this is an acceptable transitional arrangement, I think that could be good. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: What's the best? Thank you, Mr. President. I guess my question to you, Madam Mayor, would just be what, you know, if that, if those funds were cut, what would the disruption and legal services look like to the city?
[Zac Bears]: Solicitor Scanlon. So it would be impactful on all departments is what you're saying.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Can we amend that to a $50,000 cut?
[Zac Bears]: I think even allowing, given the shortened schedule over the summer months, both July and August, if necessary.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna have to go now. I'm sorry? No, I wanted to, but I don't disagree in principle, but my vote's no. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, I had a couple questions. I don't know exactly how you want to do this. I had questions on elections, uh, P. D. S. And then a few D. P. W. Departments. Um, my question on elections. Just to clarify the communication we received from the administration is that from what I could tell, $31,500 was added to the budget and moved to the personnel line or salaries line for the elections. Uh, register our voters to create a full-time election coordinator, is that correct? That's correct. And that would be cap 11 and posted publicly for hiring? Correct. And would that happen prior to the municipal election?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And you're working with the clerk on the hiring process or I don't know if the clerk wants to, how would that hiring process work? The clerk is the final decision or? Would that job be posted?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Um, I guess I'm just wondering on the timing here. You know, we are coming up pretty quickly on a municipal preliminary election September 14th. So, you know, would this person be on board in a timely fashion to ensure that our elections go forward smoothly?
[Zac Bears]: All right. Thank you. That's my main concern. It's just timing. Vice President
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Just if I could get this all clear and then I'm not precluding any further questions on the matter, but hopefully try to come to a consensus and get this CAF thing into a clear place for everyone to be understanding. It's your commitment that any position that currently doesn't have a CAF that will be funded through this budget at our July meeting, we will have a CAF change proposal in front of this council for that position.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, so that's my statement. That's a blanket commitment.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And then your hope is to get as many as possible to us by July, especially the most urgent positions.
[Zac Bears]: And then there's also a commitment, I believe in the communication to review the entire cap and review all positions in the city to make sure that they're all fitting within a cap. And that would come at some point
[Zac Bears]: August or September.
[Zac Bears]: Is there a potential?
[Zac Bears]: I hear that. And then, so for future, either supplemental budgets or next fiscal year budget, assuming, you know, assuming, yeah, just next fiscal year budget, this administration would submit a cap change for any new positions, either at the same time or before those positions were requested to be funded?
[Zac Bears]: And you could commit to that?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, well, I didn't want to say it. Assuming that this administration is the administration, that is helpful. Thank you. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, well, the only reason I asked you to go first is because I'm hoping you come to an end of the roundabout on the cap. I agree with Councilor Marks. I feel like there's a commitment made, not just in the short term, but also in the long term, that the process will be followed the way that we're all saying it to be followed in the future. And to be honest, the main reason I ask is because I'm only on my first question. So if there is a motion on the caps, I would just hope it could be made, it could be debated, and it could be dispensed with. I'll certainly offer the motion.
[Zac Bears]: May I continue my question? You may resume your question. Thank you, and I'll try to go with the easier ones first, because that won't turn into a whole debate. A few just, I tried to note, we did get an updated budget submission today, and I was just trying to make sure I understood the differences between what we have in front of us now and what was submitted to us on June 3rd. For planning, development, and sustainability, I noticed there's about a $4,500 decrease. Is that due to the duplication of boards and commissions that was included in the PDS line?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. For police and traffic supervisors, it looked to me like about $9,000 was transferred from police to traffic supervisors. Could you just, I can't quite remember why that happened, but I think it may have come up.
[Zac Bears]: Got it, and then in the DPW, there's a few things moving around. Looks like about $30,000 more in highway, 6,000, oh, sorry, yeah, 6,000 less in cemetery, 4,000 less in parks, and looks like something like 50,000 more in facilities. Could you just explain what those changes are?
[Zac Bears]: Great, so those were two of my other questions. On forestry, it looks like it's going up about $90,000. You said that was tree removal and what else?
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: And then, okay, so that $14,000 or so in human resources, between both human resources and diversity, which are now split out, you said that's $4,000 for ordinary expenses and a $10,000 increase to the director's salary. Correct. Wonderful. Those are all of my questions. Thank you very much for your great work.
[Zac Bears]: I believe Director Natalie Benjamin said that the forestry line item, there was increase for tree planting and stump removal.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will do my best to keep it short and sweet. I just had one final question on the elections department. There is a person a position currently that's different from the new position that's being created, but it's doing some of the similar work on a part-time basis. I just wanna confirm that that position will continue until the new position is filled, is that correct? Great, I just wanted to make sure, because I know there's a ton of work going on to make sure that with the election, with the redistricting, with everything going on, there's just a lot of work down there. So that's good to hear. I'm seeing a nod from the mayor, yes. So just in case you can't see that on the screen. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: No.
[Zac Bears]: I believe one set went to Councilor Morell and one set went to Councilor Scapelli.
[Zac Bears]: I don't disagree with that. I believe the records before us are the Tuesday meeting we had, not the Friday evening meeting we had, which those records would come up at our July meeting? The Friday evening meeting records, I finished about an hour before this meeting started.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Solicitor, thanks for being here. You're welcome. if we were to enter executive session per that category, would it automatically invoke individual rights no matter what we discuss or would it depend on what we discuss in the meeting?
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Biez. If we were to enter an executive session that was duly noticed, and we were to ask you what our next steps would be, would your answer likely be that you can't comment on ongoing personnel matters?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, I agree with what my colleagues are saying, that we've received documentation of a serious nature and that we should have some ability to address it. However, it does seem to me that that's in conflict with the legal role given to this public body under state law. And it sounds to me like if we were to enter executive session to try to discuss next steps, the answers we would receive in that executive session from a solicitor Scanlon would likely be the same answers we've received here and now. I guess, would you be, if we were to enter executive session duly noticed under purpose one, do you expect that you would be able to provide us guidance on legal next steps beyond saying support a third party investigation or refer it to a legal?
[Zac Bears]: And do you feel like there's any additional information you'd be able to provide an executive session that you can't provide here?
[Zac Bears]: I mean, that's fine. It just seems to be that at the end of Friday, the result will be the same, which is, we can say that we want to support a third-party investigation. We want to hire outside legal counsel, which would require appropriation, which we certainly wouldn't have before next Tuesday. Maybe, amazingly, we would. I just don't expect that to happen. I just think our hands are tied here a little bit, which is difficult, but I just wanted to lay that out because I think we just need to be on the same page that we may enter an executive session Friday evening and leave that session with no more information than we have right now. So we might want to think about how we can act given the information we currently have given that reality.
[Zac Bears]: A few more questions. Do you believe we could convene in an executive session tonight under purpose five of the OML exemptions for executive session?
[Zac Bears]: So it would have to have been filed, there would have to be a charge on file.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Are you aware of how the current independent investigation is being funded? What line item is being used to pay for the existing third party investigation?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Do you know when that might begin.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Yeah, I mean, to me, I would move that or I would, if Councilor Marks's motion is to enter executive session in 48 hours on Friday evening, I could support that as long as it's duly noticed. I also think we should move tonight to say that we support a third party independent investigation into the charges and that we requested appropriation for an outside legal counsel. I think if we take those three actions tonight, we're making a clear step forward within the constraints that we are under. by the open meeting law and general statute and the predicament of the city solicitor as part of the administration, which I think is a constraint on our ability to act as well. So that would be my suggestion as moving forward. I would also suggest that we move forward with tonight and tomorrow's budget meetings to stay on track with that.
[Zac Bears]: Council members. I mean, I think we are getting guidance to be quite frank. I understand it's not the guidance I think any of us want to hear, but it is the guidance we're getting. I guess my question would just be, if we were to discuss individuals on a properly noticed meeting who did not attend, would the only, would there be an outcome other than having an open meeting law complaint filed against this council? Could the council be subject to litigation?
[Zac Bears]: We could be fined by through the- By the division of open government. Right, through the open meeting law.
[Zac Bears]: Right, but so, there could be an open meeting law complaint filed, we could be fined. Could other litigation be filed other than that?
[Zac Bears]: Potentially, okay. Yeah, that's the answer I thought you'd give. It's just an open question, right?
[Zac Bears]: People can pretty much sue over anything. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, my amendments. I think it's to it was that we support an outside third party investigation into the legal and personnel matters received by the council. And, yeah. and that we request that the city, that the mayor appropriate funds to the council for an outside legal council, council with an I, council with an E, respectively. My third suggestion was just that we continue forward with budget meetings, which I don't think needs to be a part of this. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: without getting into specifics, that I think we all take these, the documents that we received very seriously. And personally, I would just thank both of you for your work for the city. I don't think I can say more than that right now, but we take this seriously.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, would it be possible for this council to receive a documentation of the scope of the third party investigation or whatever agreement has been entered into with the investigator? No, no, no, I gotcha.
[Zac Bears]: It was, is it possible that the council could receive a copy of the scope provided or requested by, of the third party investigator or a copy of any legal, you know, legal agreement, memorandum of understanding, whatever the document might be, contract between the city and the third party investigator.
[Zac Bears]: I guess I would just respect the request, whatever, any written agreements entered into between the city and the investigator, either that have already been entered into or that will be entered into, be provided to the council, a copy be provided to the council. And then I'd make that a formal motion.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. Councilor Baxter. My question actually isn't for the petitioner. It's just that we asked the city administration, you know, who provided the information that they could open before we- Mr. Clerk, if you want to make that part of the report, Councilor Baxter would like to know
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Best. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank you, Councilor Marks, for bringing this forward and all my fellow councilors for their kind words. I was really moving to hear from Brian at the memorial ceremony a couple Sundays ago. I know the introduction, I think you actually, I went through many of his awards and commendations that were mentioned in his introduction, but it was really clear to see the support and camaraderie he had with his fellow firefighters, which I think you can only gain through all the service that he's provided to our community. So thank you again for bringing this forward and congratulations to Brian.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you to my fellow councilors. I hear what Councilor Morell is saying about the legal issue. So I would like Solicitor Scanlon to confirm that we are allowed to take this short-term step. It sounds like she thinks we are, which is good. I was driving through there on a Saturday recently, and it is bonkers. I mean, there are so many people down there, more than I've ever seen before. And you can really tell because there are multiple ice cream trucks up at Shannon Beach, and they're really taking advantage of it too. It took me 10, 15 minutes to get from the circle at High Street up into Winchester. So it's a huge volume of people up there every weekend. I think what everyone has said is accurate. The piece that I really just wanna make sure we take on is even if we are able to implement the short-term solution, we can't forget the long-term solution and really addressing this larger issue of private ways, because at the end of the day, what Councilor Scarpelli said is correct. We're gonna end up spending city resources on enforcing this issue, but not getting the money from Chapter 90, not getting the money back for the large volume of private ways that we have. Certainly I support whatever we can do to address this immediately. It seems like the situation is way out of hand and it got that way pretty quickly, but I agree with Councilor Morell. We have to have some sort of committee of the whole on the long-term situation with private ways in our community as well. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. With the American Rescue Plan Act, the federal government significantly expanded the child tax credit for families and specifically for children and providing additional resources for all of the different costs that a child has. This is a great expanded benefit. It's estimated that it will significantly help millions of families across the country. And right here in Medford, I'm sure thousands of families, however, Not a lot of people are fully aware that this benefit has passed and may not be taking advantage of it. So the intent of this resolution is that the city administration work with the public schools. And I would like to amend this to include the Medford Family Network to just notify families that this is an option, that these funds are out there and that they can help families and children across the city do better. So I've turned it over to Councilor Morell. who co-sponsored this.
[Zac Bears]: So thanks. Councilor Best. Thank you, Mr. President. And yeah, thank you, Alicia and Danielle. I just wanted to add to what Councilor Scarpelli was saying. I know I've spoken with Roberta Cameron. I think Roberta's probably said it before this council. On the housing one, the costs are so high to make a real impact. that they'd like to have an affordable housing trust fund so that we can put money into it, build that up over time, and really hit the big project. So I just wanted to put that out as part of the context as well, because I think, and that may be true for something like the fire stations as well. That's maybe a bigger expense than a park repair or windows on a historical building, something like that. So just wanted to put that out as context, and thank you for letting me speak, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Bears. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, President Caraviello for putting this forward. As it stands, you know, it says as being opposed to the new island installation, I'm not opposed to an island. If we could change that to concerns regarding the placement of the new island installation, then I would be more comfortable voting for it. All right, did you get that, Mr. Clerk?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so where it says as being opposed to, change that to that we have concerns regarding the placement of. I wouldn't mind seeing it redesigned, but if it's essential, it's, you know.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Best. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to echo Councilor Marks, Councilor Morell, and thanking you, Jim and Laurel, for your service. I think it's really exciting news for South Medford that that name change will be in the budget, both the House and the Senate. which is just great news, so thank you again.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. If I may add to Councilor Scarpelli's point, I believe the private management company had said the state law says we have to give them heat till June 15th. So we couldn't turn on the air conditioning. I think maybe I think we've heard before from this administration that they've advocated with the state to change rules that they felt were affecting safety when it came to nursing homes and COVID. I think as part of Councilor Scarpelli's amendment, they should go to the state and say, why is this based on the arbitrary June 15th and not based on the temperature at the time? You should be able to have air conditioning when it's 90 degrees or heat when it's 30 degrees, whether it's June 12th or December 12th, it doesn't matter. So I think that should be a part of this as well, is that the administration should go to the state and say, if it's not a local ordinance question and it's a state law, that law needs to be adjusted so that we're not in this situation. Because I believe the problem ended up being fixed on a Tuesday. That was four or five days of 90 degree heat until the problem was fixed. So it needs to be done in a much more timely manner going forward. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Mr. Clerk, would you make that spot there? Company was blaming the state rule on June 15th. That's fine. Just to include the look at state law. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I certainly couldn't say anything better than what Councilor Scarpelli just said. Send my condolences to you, Councilor Scarpelli, and also to Bud Kelly's family. My sister and I went to Medford Public Schools with Haley and Kelly Carr. Bud was their grandfather. So just send my condolences to the whole family on this loss of a great Medford resident.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. How many Dunkin' Donuts locations does your management company operate or own?
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And you have, you know, two locations within a pretty reasonable distance from the locations you're going to be remodeling. Why not just send customers to the next closest location that you are owning?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I personally am not in favor of this. I think you could say Down the street is our Fellsway location. We'll be closed for two weeks. And if you own hundreds of Dunkin' Donuts, it doesn't seem like it would hurt the bottom line that much to me. So that's where I stand on this. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I request that we vote on the sausage guy and the Dunkin' Donuts separately, please. That's fine.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I don't think I could say it any better than my colleagues have already, but it really is a fantastic accomplishment, and it's especially great to see the team spirit and see so many people here tonight with you, supporting you. So I'm excited to see what you continue to do as you continue to grow as a player. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Not done yet. And I'm happy to let you know, I've been a lifelong resident of the Fulton Heights neighborhood. So the whole area around your former farmhouse, we call the Fulton Heights today.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: And I fully support this. I think it's incredibly important that we recognize our history. And a little bit, I think, after your first work with the Tea Party, Abigail Adams said, remember the women. So I think it's very apt.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Director Durham. I want to echo what Councilor Scarpelli said about the words that you, the speech that you gave at our Memorial Day remembrance. And, you know, luckily was able to get part of a transcript, share it out with some people that I know, because I think all too often we forget that we've been in the longest war that we've, you know, this is the longest war we've ever been in the war that we're still fighting right now. And I really also appreciated you bringing to light that there are people coming back who wouldn't have come back before, that, you know, we aren't doing the work to reintegrate them into our society and make sure that they're welcome and they're getting the jobs that they need. So I think that's just a really important thing to put out there. But I also want to acknowledge our World War II veterans. My uncle Bill fought at the Battle of the Bulge. My Grandfather was part of the occupation of Japan and I'm lucky too, that they were historians themselves and they shared those stories with us. And I hope that for the World War II veterans who are still here, people can really hear their stories because that was a fight for the future of the world. And I don't think people really understand what was at stake and what they sacrificed to make sure that we can have elections and we can have democracy and we can have a civil culture where we can have those disagreements. So thank you for the work that you're doing and thank you to post 45 as well for the work that they did to put the flags down.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I mean, I think most of the resolution speaks for itself. The funds coming to the city from the American Rescue Plan Act are a significant investment from the federal government and the city representing almost a quarter of an annual budget that we would pass in a year. And I think we should have a clear accounting from the administration as to how they're spending those funds, that they're being spent within the, how they're being spent within the four for main categories of eligible expenses per the Department of the Treasury. And I think something that many communities are doing with this money, or at least with a portion of it, is having a public input process to determine what are the needs that the public would like to see this money expended on. And I'd really like to hear from the administration if they are planning to engage in any sort of public process around this funding and what Medford residents would like to see it spent on. I do have one amendment for the clerk after the words city of Medford in the first paragraph, and you can let me know when you're ready. And it would be, and any additional funds provided as part of the Middlesex County allocation. And that amendment reflects the 37 million is what was allocated directly to the city of Medford, but because we do not have a county government, we will also be getting a portion of the funds allocated to Middlesex County. So I just wanted to make sure that that was part of this.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. If I could just, I believe that those grants are separate from the 50 million that would come to the city. There are additional money we can apply for. So I just want to make that, you know, Because they very well could possibly use the money within here around premium pay as well. So I think we should apply for the additional grants. Hopefully we can have even more money coming into the city. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. As I think, I was hoping Councilor Scarpelli's resolution we'd talk a little bit about first. We do have a lot of bodies and boards and commissions and the school committee and city council coming back into this right now, just this room as it's the only room outfitted for a hybrid meeting to allow participation by the public remotely. I think we've seen the great advantages that's had in terms of engagement. and people being able to attend our public bodies. And, you know, we still have many immunocompromised people, people under the age of 12 and other folks who can't access vaccines who are still going to need to be able to access all of our public meetings. So the intent of this resolution is to really push the city administration to make sure that this is not the only space where we can have a Zoom hybrid meeting with the body meeting in person and members of the public participating remotely. I have spoken with Patrick Gordon from Medford Community Media about the, you know, intense amount of work that goes into just making this room work with the current technology that we have. But we also talked about there being technology out there or at least partially out there that would allow rooms like room 201, room 207 or the room at the high school where the school committee often meets to have the hybrid technology needed to allow these meetings to function more smoothly. I've also reviewed the treasury department guidance and spoken with the city administration and they agree that the ARPA funding, which does allow for technological upgrades, this would qualify under that. So really just trying to put, you know, fire under the administration to get this done. One of the concerns that I know is out there is that now everybody is trying to get this technology. It's the same issue we faced last year when we were trying to set this room up for hybrid meetings. So we really need to get the funding out the door and make sure that Medford Community Media is able to set this up and that there are folks who are adequately trained to run these meetings going forward. And that's the intent of the resolution. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I did talk to Patrick around the cost estimate. Patrick was able to ballpark it for me. I said, is this going to be a million dollars? He said, absolutely not. He said 500,000. He said less than that. So just in terms of a ballpark, tens of thousands of dollars, it seems to be just so. Oh, that's good. Yeah. And I'm fine asking Patrick to provide a cost estimate. If we could do that at the same time that we're telling the city administration that this is important to us, I think that would be valuable. So that's just my own request. Councilor Falco.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. And just if I may, that's part of the intent here. It will take time. The more cities and towns around us that start to do it, the more time it'll take. So if we can be out front, I think that's good for us in the long run.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, Councilor Best, if we could have the 710 bus as well.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Bears. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for the presentation. Do you expect any additional or traffic impact from the additional service bays?
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, motion to suspend the rules.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. President. Move to suspend the rules to take up papers 21-two zero two and 21-three eight eight.
[Zac Bears]: 21-388. It's Councilors Kelly's first motion. We have folks in the audience tonight.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Best. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, and Marion, I just want to thank you for running us through, um, the incredible, difficult work that you've been tasked with doing over the past year. Um, and the toll that it's taken on people who work for the city, uh, volunteers and your family. Um, you were able to keep us safe under incredibly difficult conditions without the support that you needed from the federal and state government, constantly having to advocate for the basics. And you did a great job. We owe you personally a deep debt of gratitude and thanks for what you've done. And we are deepest respect. So I just wanna thank you very much again, and for all the work you're going to continue to do over the next months to keep us safe as we continue, hopefully to wrap up and wind down with this pandemic. I have two questions for you. Could you just quickly go over what the current guidance is for public buildings? And then I'll ask my second question.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Marianne. And that's one of the reasons I'm wearing a mask tonight, even though I'm fully vaccinated. My second question is on next steps. I know there's, you know, we've done a really great job getting vaccines rolled out to our community. And I'm just wondering, in addition to the real talk, are there any other efforts that the city is undertaking to folks get vaccinated who have not gotten a vaccine already?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Marianne. I just want to thank you again, and glad that you were able to take time with your family last week. And I look forward to the continued work that you're doing. Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I think the question was how many COVID deaths were there and how many were in the nursing homes?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Mayes. Thank you, Mr. President. Derek, I just want to echo my colleagues and say congratulations. I was able to work on two of my friends Eagle Scout service projects when we were all in high school together. And I know how much work goes into that. And I also know the area you're talking about on Otis street. So that's a great project for our community. And exactly what councilor Knight said, I think this is great for your future. And I really wish you the best and your family the best as you become an electrician. So congratulations. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Move to table.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. And one of the conditions it mentions that there will be an interim period between the trench patch and the final restoration of the road surface of the sidewalk. How long do you expect that will be?
[Zac Bears]: That is what the condition says. I was just wondering if you had any idea.
[Zac Bears]: Well, this condition says that there will be temporary markings painted during the interim period between trench patch and final restoration. So There will be clearly some sort of gap where we will have a temporary patch.
[Zac Bears]: None of this is on the agenda. I think we should stop discussion there. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, if I may. Councilor Bez. I definitely agree with President Caraviello. I think reaching out to the police department directly, as well as reaching out to the mayor's office who supervises the police would be a good venue for this question. And I also just want to thank you. As a student at Medford High School, I know it takes a lot of courage to speak in front of the public. And I want to thank you for taking some time to learn about civics and ask a question of your city council. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I found the records precise and I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion, Councilor Bears. I just had a question for the city engineer. Is he on the call? Councilor Bears has a question for you.
[Zac Bears]: addition for the plan, not including utility. That's something that's been addressed.
[Zac Bears]: Chair recognizes Councilor Bears. Thank you, Mr. President, through you to engineer, we give her just two quick questions on the review of the extension of the bike lane. Do you have a timeline on how long that will take?
[Zac Bears]: Great. And then my second question is actually about striping and painting. Is there something included in the plan around striping and painting that may make the island more visible to drivers?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Best. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Marks and Councilor Scarpelli. I fully support the sidewalk extension and always think it's important to remember that this public utility made $1.2 billion in profit last year. So I think that they can give back to this community and have more than enough funds to do so. I do have a question for the city engineer if he is still on the call. Is the city engineer still on?
[Zac Bears]: All right. Thank you, Mr. I haven't asked it yet. Um, question for you, Tim, uh, regarding the timing on this whole project. I know we discussed several weeks ago, um, around trying to accelerate the project, specifically the paving on Mystic Avenue, paving on South Street, these areas that could be repaved. Has there been any progress on making sure that that's done this season? I think as everyone is well aware, Mystic Avenue is a disaster in terms of road condition and South Street isn't too far behind. So are we moving forward with that?
[Zac Bears]: I would second that.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. I just had a quick question. Councilor Martz, what's the date on that MOU?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think as everyone behind this rail and across the city knows, The senior center has very limited parking immediately adjacent to it. And prior to the implementation of Park Medford seniors would use the city parking lot across the street without incident, whether they're going to on a trip or leaving their car there or going just to the senior center to do the activities and spend time at the senior center. Once Park Medford came in, that lot became restricted. A kiosk went in. Initially, there were no additional parking spots for the senior center at all. I believe the mitigation that was made was that there are certain, I think 20 or so permits that the senior center has that allows seniors to park in that lot for about three hours. But that hasn't been enough, quite frankly, for the senior center. If residents are going on a day trip, you know, eight, 10 hours, you know, the three hour limit there is insufficient. They've tried to find some other alternatives, but people are constantly worried that they'll be ticketed or towed. And one of the things that did not make it into the enforcement report, as far as I could tell, was what would happen with senior center parking as these policies and enforcement and policies are changed. So the request here is that the administration as it implements any parking changes, make sure that the senior center has sufficient parking for a sufficient amount of time for seniors to adequately use the center for all of the various activities that they use. There are several suggestions that could work. One of them, I believe I've heard many of my fellow Councilors mentioned before, is that there should be a senior parking permit citywide, that seniors should be exempt or have a special permit that exempts them from the kiosks and those various charges. Another option would be to change the rules specifically on that lot to expand the amount of time that seniors can park there. I think there's a lot of ways that this could be addressed, but it's a serious issue for seniors, for the staff at the senior center, and for folks who use that space. And I just hope, and that's why I filed this along with Councilor Morell, that the city administration will make sure that this is finally worked out. All of our residents can access the senior center, park there and do the various activities and services that they use the senior center for. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Morell. Mr. President, if I may, is there a time limit on your permit? Like, you can only say- One year. Just in terms of how long you can stay in a specific spot?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and along those lines, I appreciate the additional information. I think the issue is, it's a two hour spot, so you can stay for three hours. There's only, I think, 20, I believe 22 is the number, I might be wrong, but there's more passes out than there are spots. So it's kind of one of those situations where if additional spots could be signed for this, and if they could be signed to be, you know, you can park there all day, that would address a lot of the issues that I've been hearing. So that's the intent here.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, I just want to add that I definitely agree with my colleagues that We should be getting the weekly written updates that we requested especially if the Board of Health staff can't be in attendance at the meeting. I would just add that the, the order that's being released on March on May 29. It says if you are fully vaccinated, there are situations where you no longer have to wear a mask. There are other situations where it's still recommended. And I also believe that the city health department and board of health can still implement other regulations. So I completely agree with all my colleagues that we need that information because right now we don't have it. And we're saying, what is the rule here in Medford? But I just wanted to put that out there. And there is information on the mass.gov website around the governor's order. If folks who are watching want to learn more. Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Morell and my fellow councilors. I agree with the sentiments that everyone just echoed. I would just also ask that we amend the paper to request that the administration give us an estimated timeline for when the legal process will be complete for the same reasons that my fellow councilors have outlined. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I know it's a lot of mirrors. I would just ask that we also invite mascot because I believe Webster fountain and the Salem Street Rotary are dot not DCR. Um, and it's a problem. The grass is a problem, but the trash is a problem too. And I don't even think those two state coordinate agencies are coordinating either. So it might be good to have everybody in the room, um, to, to try to iron this out. I live on a state road and it's a big problem. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. Thank you. I just want to second what Councilor Falco said here. I mean, the condition of the roadway itself and the curbing, and in many cases, the sidewalks is a disaster. I was down there three weeks ago at the McGlynn School, and it's a safety hazard in addition to being a shame on the condition itself. I can remember two years ago, a meeting at some point where someone was complaining about the cost of granite curbing. And I think this speaks to the larger issue that I think we've all been talking about for a long time, which is we need to find a way to make sure that our infrastructure is fully maintained on a reasonable schedule. Councilor Marks was talking about this in regards to road repair and replacement. 700 roads, we're doing six every certain number of years. I mean, it's a serious problem and we need more than status quo plans. So I'm really hopeful that someone in the administration will take this seriously and address this problem because someone could get hurt. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Miss. Councilor Scarpelli just took the words out of my mouth. If you're driving down Middlesex Avenue, you know this car wash is there. unless the committee wants to send it to subcommittee, I would be comfortable voting to deny the reversal tonight.
[Zac Bears]: to get a paper in suspension from Vice President Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to take papers from the hand of the clerk.
[Zac Bears]: And thank you, Mr. President. And I really appreciate that. And I bring this up as well. You know, every day, EMS professionals are saving lives in this community. And I think we've asked so much of them, especially over the past 15 months, that this is really the least we can do to thank them, not just for their volunteers and their professionalism, but for their sacrifices that they've made to keep us all safe and healthy. So I support this resolution.
[Zac Bears]: comes to this, Mr. President, if I may, I just really do encourage residents to take a look at the recordings of the meetings we've held, attend our next meeting, we put a lot of work into this. And you know, the process is out there. And I'm actually echoing Councilor Marks on a recent comment on another committee report, just to see the work that we've done. And it is out there. So if you haven't taken a look, it's worth a worth a watch.
[Zac Bears]: First, I want to thank Mr. Sutherland Mr. Barry's family. Many of the stories you've told tonight remind me of my time at the Davenport, the Hervey the Brooks, and the educators I have had in my life they brought me where I am now. And then I've brought generations of students in this community to successful and wonderful lives. So, I don't want to intercede on the as a city council or the business of the school committee or make a statement on the renaming of the school because I think as my fellow Councilors have said we don't have authority on the matter. Separately, I do want to say something about one statement tonight, a timeline and a political statement about racism that was made tonight that wasn't related to what we're talking about around the school renaming that doesn't reflect the reality we face racism is a problem across the country. And yes, even here in Medford. You may not want to hear it, but when we deny systemic racism, we ignore and erase the daily experiences of many Black, Latino, Asian, and Native American people in our city. Dr. King was quoted, as has been quoted many times to justify not talking about racism. In that same speech that he made in 1963, he said, We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or taking the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Inalienable human rights were brought up tonight, and for some people in our community, they aren't being protected. The idea of being treated equally has come up tonight. And for some people in our community, that's not their reality. For people experiencing racism, it is a big deal. As Councilor Mark said, sometimes in a public forum, things are said that people don't wanna hear. I know some people don't wanna hear what I'm saying. I've sat here and respectfully heard what you've said, and I hope you'll take consideration of what I'm saying. We have an obligation to take action and an honest look at history and at racism. We will never have true unity without truth and reconciliation. It's not time to make national political statements like racism isn't a problem here. It is a time for us to be honest and true with each other and take action to address the problems that I hear about every day. And that deeply saddened me, I think in the way that many of you feel deeply saddened by what you are here to talk about. So again, thank you, Mr. Sutherland, to the Berry family. What I just said was not in relation to anything about that or the Columbus School, but to a specific statement I made about the timeline of what's happened in our community over the last two years. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Beza.
[Zac Bears]: I'm tired of listening to people who I get a call, Mr. President,
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I never said we're all racists, Mr. D'Antonio, and I think it is disrespectful to people in this community who have experienced racism to deny it. Mr. He said there's no racism in Medford.
[Zac Bears]: It's not a lie.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Mr. President, point of information. Point of information, Councilor, it is. The mayor said that systemic racism is a public health crisis. The mayor did not say this is a racist city. That is scientifically verifiable, and it is something we need to address, thank you. Okay. Yes, we said that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for coming out of your shell.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. Councilor Best. Will the cleaning service worker, the machine they used to pick up my trash has cracked the barrel in half.
[Zac Bears]: We have a lot of stuff to do with waste minutes, but I appreciate you bringing this up.
[Zac Bears]: I withdraw my motion.
[Zac Bears]: The next candidate is Isaac B. Zach Beers. Thanks for using the long version of my name, Henry. So first I want to thank Henry and Julia, the Medford Democratic City Committee, the Ward 6 Committee, and of course everyone who's here tonight, the audience and the 13 other candidates from Medford City Council. My name is Zach Bares. I'm running to represent the people of Medford as a candidate for city council. I'm a lifelong resident of the Fulton Heights, where I live with my parents, Laura and Bruce. And a lot like Nat, I'd like to stay in the city, and I'm at home right now because I have a college degree, a full-time job, and Medford's not affordable for working people. I graduated from Medford High School in 2011 after attending the Davenport, Hervey, Brooks, and Andrews schools. I attended UMass Amherst, graduating in 2015. Currently, I'm the executive director of Phenom, a nonprofit that advocates for public education and fights alongside parents, teachers, and students to make sure that public schools and colleges are fully funded. I'm happy to say that just yesterday, after spending hours at the Statehouse, not as many as Paul Donato, who was just in the room, though, the House of Representatives just passed the Student Opportunity Act, which is going to invest millions of dollars in Medford schools and billions of dollars in public schools across the state. I know what this community means to so many residents, whether they've lived here for five years or 50 years, because it means so much to me. Medford has always been a city for everyone, where people of different backgrounds and traditions live together. But with all the luxury condos and the high-end development, that's starting to change. I believe in a Medford that works for all, not just for rich property developers. This year, we have an opportunity to elect city councilors who are ready to fight for more investment in our infrastructure and our city services, who are gonna reach out to residents and really include them in big decisions and make sure that Medford remains and becomes, in some cases, livable for working families. It's gonna take real work, planning, and commitment to welcome new residents while making sure that people wanna stay here aren't pushed out. That's why the most important thing we need to do is create a five-year master plan for housing, traffic, and new property development. That includes a zoning review. Right now, we're working with developers on a case-by-case or a project-by-project basis And that gives them a huge advantage in negotiations. If we want more commercial development, responsible residential development, community benefits agreements that provide millions of dollars in fees to help fund the important things that our city needs, and just affordable homes for working families and people who want to stay here, we need a plan. A big piece of this is improving the walkability and the livability of our squares. Right now, you look at Medford Square, three of the five or six ways to get in here, nobody wants to walk to the square, because they're afraid they're going to get injured, hit by a car, stuck at a light. We really need to take a look at making our public squares more walkable, because that's how we get people there, that's how we get commercial development there, and that's how we make them places that people want to go. At the end of the day, we have something the developers want, and we have the power to make them play by our rules. We also need to invest in our city infrastructure and services. Medford residents deserve roads, sidewalks, parks, and public buildings that aren't falling apart. As a graduate of Medford Public Schools and through my day job that I mentioned, I'm also committed to our public schools and working with the school committee to support them. We need to create a city council subcommittee on education so we can build a stronger partnership between the council and the school committee. The city and our elected officials also need to do a better job of communicating and engaging residents in big decisions that affect them. That's why I'll hold regular public office hours and invite residents to review city council meeting agendas and materials before the meeting so we can decide what we want to do. It's also why we need new city and school websites. Has anyone been on any of our websites recently? So residents and families can find the information they need. I also strongly support charter review and ward representation so that we can get more views and allow more people to serve on this council. We can't afford to have a council that doesn't represent everyone in our city. Finally, as your city councilor, I'll work with the mayor's office, the other councilors, and the school committee to make sure that your voice is heard. We can only make these big decisions together by including as many residents as possible in the process. That's how we build a Medford where working people can raise a family. My name is Zach Baers. You can read more about me at zachbaers.com. That's Z-A-C-B-E-A-R-S, like the animal. And I'm number six on the November ballot, and I would be honored to receive one of your seven votes for city council on November 5th. Thank you. Thank you, Candidate Zach.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think it would be remiss to say that the person who holds this position right now thinks that this is working and that this is a good idea. So I just wanna acknowledge that. I agree, we need to invest deeply in diversity inclusion. And I think one of the actions that we can take is and show that diversity is a priority is elevating this position. Additionally, in our meeting, the mayor committed to another full-time diversity staff reporting to this position, which would bring us from one staff in 2018 to two staff next year. We've heard from the current person who holds this position, Mr. Osborne, that it's working. And he said this is partially about valuing the work that he is doing. It has led to new hiring processes, exactly what we were just talking about, that highlight and advance the issues of diversity and inclusion. And additionally, we heard at the meeting from the mayor's staff that this could potentially lead to a reduction in pay for the person who currently holds the office. I cannot vote to reduce the pay of someone who is doing so much work for this community. So I will be voting to approve this tonight. and continuing our commitment within the budget process to have even more people focused on diversity and inclusion in this community. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to say I was present at that meeting and I actually specifically did say I did object to that. So I think there's a little bit of selective hearing here. That's all I'll say.
[Zac Bears]: It'd be a lot nicer if you would wear a mask as we've asked you to do.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor. Mr. President, if I may. Councilor Betz. I said specifically, you can quote me, we will not police or surveil our way out of this. So I was specifically saying we should not advocate any use of police or surveillance around this topic. And freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. He said something, people objected to it, they made their point. That's how this works. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I identify myself. Thank you, Mr. President. Two points. One, all speech at any public meeting, according to mass general law is at the discretion of the chair. Second, the pension liability, that's essentially the IRS final rule on the ARP came out yesterday. which is also the day that the final amount came out. That's from the Department of the Treasury. Pension liabilities cannot be funded using ARP money. And there were a few other categories. We've had several resolutions on the issue and I was reading a 130 page letter yesterday. So I can tell you that this council is on top of the ARP.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Mr. President, I see Joanna Quateria Mejia with their hand up.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Mr. President, if I may come to this, I just want to completely agree with Councilor Knight and the whole purpose of the First Amendment is that the government shouldn't get in the business of regulating speech in the first place. So it's not our prerogative. And the best way we can honor the First Amendment is to not do that. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, motion to suspend the rules to take paper 21-202 updates from director of public health, Marianne O'Connor.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I also just want to say happy birthday to Nancy. I knew Nancy for many years as part of the Medford Democratic City Committee and I would definitely agree with Councilor Marks. She was the one pulling everyone together, making sure the meetings got done. So happy birthday, Nancy.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Morell. Thank you, Mr. President. purpose of this resolution is just to congratulate Max Heining, he's a longtime teacher at Medford High School. He was my 10th grade English teacher, and a really active community member through Medford Brewing Company and now through his successful and award winning poetry so thank you to Max Heining, who I always want to call Mr. Heining, and I would like to ask the clerk to send a certificate of our congratulations. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I wanna thank Councilor Scarpelli, Vice President Knight. If you wouldn't mind a further amendment, Councilor Scarpelli, I'd also like to ask that the city engineer and traffic engineer try to determine a lot where potentially we could do the same thing that Winchester's doing.
[Zac Bears]: I agree with that. I had one further comment, Mr. President. Yes. Have you received any update from the city engineer or Eversource as to expediting the Eversource project as we discussed several weeks ago?
[Zac Bears]: And it's still, I know that we had asked that they try to come to an agreement.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I actually saw Councilor Morell, so I'm happy to defer to her.
[Zac Bears]: What's the best? Thank you, Mr. President. I really appreciate Vice President Knight bringing this forward and what Councilor Scarpelli said, and I think it's a great way to link the great work that's being done in our schools. with the city government and hopefully, you know, I think these students actually have some policy ideas that hopefully we could consider as well. But I did also want to lift up. I would hope that we can advance the Gender Equity Commission promptly as well alongside the Youth Commission. And I will put a plug in for the pilot commission on payments in lieu of taxes that I proposed last January. I think all of these commissions are worthy efforts that would really benefit the city.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilors marks and Falco. We had two great subcommittee meetings. This first one is on elderly and housing affairs. We discussed housing stability, um, and I got an update from our folks in our health department about how housing is being incorporated into the social work that they are doing from Alicia and Penny. We reported out in motion from the subcommittee to recommend that the mayor include $50,000 in the fiscal year 22 budget to continue emergency rental assistance. And it'd be possible that the city administration could pursue additional grants as well. We also discussed Councilor Falco's proposal for a housing stability notification ordinance. We will be getting a red line copy from the city solicitor and discussing that at our next meeting. and I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. And that is reflected in the actual report. I apologize. I just used the wrong word.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, once again, Councilor Marks, Councilor Falco and myself met this time to discuss snow removal with the public works subcommittee. We did have a discussion again of the priority sidewalks list, and we did make a motion to recommend that the city administration issue an RFI or find another way to determine the cost of a city priority sidewalk to include that in the next snow and ice removal plan. We also had extensive discussion of the ordinance language. We did make some motions to accept changes, and we will be looking at a red line copy at our next meeting with the solicitor along with Commissioner Moki and code enforcement to discuss the enforcement section of the ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: If I may, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Best. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, we discussed both them looking for a contract to do it and also did mention that, I believe Councilor Marks mentioned, and we were all supportive of the idea of doing it in-house, purchasing the machines and identifying the manpower to do so. So we are waiting back to hear from the city administration what their determination is on cost for both of those ideas.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. Thank you for the clarification.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to thank Councilor Marks and you know, my usual intention around these is to keep them short, but I think I might get in touch with Councilor Marks next time so I can do it the full justice that he just did. So thank you. Councilor Falco.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, we couldn't hear you, I'm present.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. I would just ask if possible that you consider including a resolution that I put forward last year 20-534. It was about a ball square district plan. It seems like this might align with this in some way. So just putting that on your radar is something we may want to talk about at a future meeting as well. I don't know if it would be this specific meeting or a follow-up meeting. Thank you, Councilman Betz.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. This is pretty self-explanatory. I have had residents reach out constantly asking me what the rules are, what are specific situations around parking enforcement. And they were, you know, unable to find the traffic commission's rules and regulations posted online. I think it's important that that be accessible through the city website. So residents aren't, you know, unable to find that information when they need it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I filed a very similar resolution to you, Mr. President, and to Vice President Knight. I appreciate the note from Republic Parking. I think the only element It wasn't clear to me if residents who use Park Mobile would be notified of the data breach through Republic Parking. So that would be one item that I would like to see addressed by Park Medford.
[Zac Bears]: I want the users to be notified that there was a data breach. They may have been notified by Park Mobile, but I think it would be helpful if Park Medford would notify them. Do you want to make that a form of amendment? Sure, it's in my resolution. So if they're consolidated, I think it's already included.
[Zac Bears]: Correct.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's fine, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. As the chair of public works, I'd be happy to work through this. Were you just suggesting, Councilor Marks, looking at 70-6 subsection B, or do you want to look at the whole section?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I will work to schedule a meeting. Is that an amendment that we're sending this to public works or?
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. Councilor Bears. I just want to congratulate Paul, wish him good luck, and he's definitely a better skater than I am. So good luck.
[Zac Bears]: If we could, if possible, amend the paper to add the on-ramp on Mystic Ave across from the inspection station. It's kind of a similar area. It's also very dirty. Yep.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just want to say that I would support discussing that next week and just add to what Councilor Marks was saying. I have heard of residents who have been notified automatically when their water usage spikes in the case of an issue with the water heater or some other leak. So if that program does exist, I think it'd be great for all residents to know how to access it. It would avoid situations like the one that you brought up. So I look forward to that. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I have reviewed the records and I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: He's the former Secretary of Labor, Barbara.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm just so excited for this building to open. I am hopeful that by the fall, the schedules will line up and we'll be able to have an in-person event of some kind And hopefully it can be a celebration of community, not just coming out of this pandemic, but also coming together around this great community institution. So I'm just pumped. I can't wait to reserve a meeting room, take out a book. And I also just want to thank Barbara, the whole library staff, the library foundation, and the board of the library foundation. I think it's also an amazing testament to our community that we have raised so much money to support this. And I got an email from Ken as well around the green campaign. So I think that's just another community value, having solar panels on the building. So it really, this project just speaks to, I think, so many of the wonderful things about Medford and I'm excited for this fall. So thank you to everybody.
[Zac Bears]: Motion received in place on file.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I put this forward after seeing a request from a resident last week. They were looking to enter a domestic partnership. Medford currently doesn't offer that option. Some of our neighboring communities, Boston, Somerville, and others around the state do allow domestic partnerships. I put this forward to ask the solicitor and the clerk what steps would be needed to undertake that. And some of the reasons behind that, I mean, I generally don't wanna judge people for what relationship form they wanna enter, but there are some people who may not want to get married, but do wanna have their partnership recognized by their municipality. So that was my intent putting this forward to ask the clerk and the solicitor what the process would be to enable that action.
[Zac Bears]: forward facing fiscal years under which the city would be able to expend funds allocated by the American Rescue Plan Act. I think it's important for us in this year's budget to understand to the best of the administration's ability what revenue will look like within those fiscal years so that we can understand what their proposal may be for spending those funds and how they may expect to spend them over a longer period of time. I think it's very important that we use those funds to maintain city services and restore in some cases city services and school services. And I think it would help us in our deliberations to understand the long term outlook for city revenue. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: And to Councilor Knight's point, if I may, Mr. President, the Mass Municipal Association is hosting a webinar on that specific topic. I believe it is not. I can't find it right now, but it's this week. It is tomorrow at 10 a.m. So I'm planning on attending that.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, if I may. Councilor Best. We also received a message from a resident to the city administration asking if there was going to be a formal response to the globe report of an attack, an anti Asian attack in the city. So I would just like that reflected as well that a resident did reach out to us about that. Thank you. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, I would like to table the records for one week.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I think we lost the council chambers.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, could we hear from attorney wall before we go into questions?
[Zac Bears]: OK. We can't hear if people aren't speaking into the microphone.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank you for your presentation. Thank the CD board and the Conservation Commission members for what seemed to be some significant improvements since the start of the project. I think my questions may be better suited for Patrick from BJ's.
[Zac Bears]: Hi, Patrick. My first question is, how long do you expect this station to be operational? You know, 10 years, 20 years?
[Zac Bears]: Um, and do you have an expectation of the annual revenue that you're going to be gaining from this facility?
[Zac Bears]: Um, I think that would be helpful for us to understand as well. Cause you know, I appreciate what you're saying about your customers, but I think you as a, as a business also have a vested interest. You wouldn't be putting this forward if it wasn't going to, to make you money. Um, the third piece of this that I want to ask about is, you know, If this project doesn't finally get final approval, would you commit to making some of the improvements around safety and environmental protection that are included in this plan?
[Zac Bears]: Or some of it. I mean, it seems like currently we have runoff going into a stream, et cetera.
[Zac Bears]: No, I'm just wondering. I mean, it just, you know, it kind of goes to, I appreciate the comments from my fellow Councilors, Scarpelli and Falco, you know, about stewardship and, you know, being a member of the community, it seems like there are some ongoing issues. And then finally, you know, If, I guess, say there's a 15 year lifespan, what would the process be for removing the facility if it eventually closes?
[Zac Bears]: Got it, I appreciate that. And the reason I ask is just with the commitments from major automakers to move to electric vehicles and the expectation that fossil fuels are no longer going to be the main way that we power transportation going forward. To me, this seems like a little bit of a short-term plan Um, and not necessarily where we're going in the long term to be installing a gas station at this late stage in, in our energy transition. Um, so that's why I bring that up, you know, in 15 years. And is that, does do industry trends reflect what you expect the life of the station to be is 15 years based on the fact that, uh, vehicles are transitioning to electric.
[Zac Bears]: Do you expect that that could be a potential future outcome as well, a conversion to some sort of electric charging station?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Well, I appreciate the answer. I share some of the concerns of my fellow Councilors, as well as some of these long-term concerns, and I would like to hear from the neighbors as well. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. I would just disagree with you on this. I think the issue has been discussed, you know, if a councillor put it forward and there was discussion, they can no longer withdraw the paper and it's already gone through other committees as well, so.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Bears. Just to clarify, yes means deny?
[Zac Bears]: Then yes.
[Zac Bears]: Rob, you mean to stop sharing and then share the other screen or share your whole screen? I think right now you're just sharing one file.
[Zac Bears]: I can stop it for you.
[Zac Bears]: We still can't see anything around.
[Zac Bears]: Darn it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Rob, for your presentation. If the three crews were permitted, if your full plan that you had sketched out was able to go into effect, Would that timeline include the resurfacing and recurbing of the project completed by the end of this construction season?
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I appreciate that. So essentially, even if you were at full capacity this year, some element of milling and paving would still be done next year, next season.
[Zac Bears]: OK. And that would include the sidewalks and curbing along Winthrop Street.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Tim, if you could just quickly. Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. Thank you, Tim. I guess my last question is, if you can only use one crew this season, do you expect the project to go beyond next season?
[Zac Bears]: Right. And Tim, I guess along those lines, given the size of this project, the scope of it, how long it's been going on compared to some of the other work going on this summer, do you think it might be possible to prioritize this project?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I would agree with that, Tim, and I would like to make a motion that the council requests that that group that met take into consideration what you just said and also try to develop a plan including prioritizing details that completes this project by the end of the 2022 construction season.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I completely hear that. And I just want to make the request. Because this is such a large amount of priority roadway in the city. And a lot of folks have had, you know, I hear about it all the time. And I agree with you. I hope we can all get it done as quickly as possible. And I hope maybe we can come to some sort of compromise that that can allow that to happen. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. Councilor Bearst. Thank you. I'd just like to make an amendment. Last time we were discussing historic districts, One of the issues was we don't have a timeline. We don't have a plan. We don't have a list of any potential districts in the city. So I'd like an amendment to make an amendment asking the historic district commission to provide a timeline for the creation of a plan outlining potential historic districts across the city.
[Zac Bears]: I believe it's denied.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I don't want to repeat the comments of my fellow Councilors and I promise I won't go on for too long. But I do think it might behoove us also to think even bigger about this. I think very likely there will be a 6G and a 7G. We also have issues with the broadband wired lines in the city right now. And I know I brought this up at the beginning of this term in January, 2020, but looking into municipal broadband, is it possible for the city to be in ownership of these devices and in that way control the placement? I just wanna put that idea out there for any future meetings, thinking outside the box of different ways that we could address the issue. So thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you to my colleagues. I won't reiterate the points and discussions that have already been made, but I do want to focus in on specifics around the legality here. I agree that it's shameful that corporations have managed to get the government to pass legislation and write regulations that gives them so much authority and takes authority away from local governments that are really responsible for these decisions at the end of the day. But I do want to propose a B paper, and I'll get to the text of it in a second, that focuses on the legal matters here. There were two orders issued by the FCC in 2018. An August 2018 moratoria order and a September 2018 small cell order that essentially is the reason that we're in this position. Completely limits the ability of local governments to address the issue. Those orders have been litigated. Communities have challenged those orders and all the way up to the Ninth District Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the litigation has been denied. Courts have said that the FCC order is a blanket, that that is, you know, that that's the law. So I agree that with what Councilor Knight said especially, this is not, you know, something that we should be voting on. But at the end of the day, unless we have a change in federal law and unless state laws are changed, if there's litigation, it'll be moved up to the chain, you know, moving up the chain of courts and eventually Verizon will force its way through anyway. and it will also cost the city money according to the FCC order. So I'd like to propose a B paper specifically focused on the legal question, which is that the city council request that the Biden administration, the FCC, and our federal delegation amend the FCC's August 2018 moratoria order and September 2018 small cell order to remove restrictions on local government authority to regulate the design replacement and installation of 5G small cell transmitters. And that we receive a reply within 30 days. And Mr. Clerk, I'm going to send that to you right now. And I appreciate the comments of my colleagues. I just wanted to focus specifically on that legal question. Because, you know, we may find ourselves right back in the same position after years of lawsuits.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Mary Ann, for your update. It seems like, again, the clarion call is needed to say that we are not out of the woods and that we are months away, if not several months away, from being able to have gatherings or, you know, anything like that. Um, so I just appreciate you noting that the cases are back on the rise, uh, and that we aren't, you know, we haven't even, we aren't even at the levels we were at last summer. Right. So we are still above the levels we were at last summer. Um, when, you know, we, that was the lowest we've been since this started. Um, so I just wanted to ask, um, has there been any discussion of slowing down Medford's progression through the reopening phases. I know a lot of local communities have said that they feel the governor's approach has been too aggressive. So I was just wondering if you had discussed that or if there was anything on the horizon on that front.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Marianne. And yeah, I just think we need to stay strong. We don't want our summer to be ruined by trying to do too much this spring. So stay safe and get a vaccine. Thanks, Marianne.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, uh, I have pressed the button asking them to unmute. Um, they may need, they need to accept it on their end. So, um, you need to press a button that'll come up on your screen.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I just wanted to add a further amendment that Lawrence Memorial come back 90 days after they complete the project, just so we can make sure that as operations continue, that the commitments are being met. I'm glad to hear about the lighting. I know that was a major concern, but I just want to make sure that the lights are really shutting off at those times once things are underway.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you and Councilor Falco for putting this resolution on. I'm a resident of the Heights as well and grew up here and took the 710 regularly when I was younger. And I can tell you, you know, the people who use this, this is seniors getting groceries and prescriptions. You know, this is families who may not have a car who need to access essential services. even regardless of commuting and not commuting, what this is providing is people access to local businesses, grocery stores, pharmacies. So I think it's incredibly important that the service is reinstated. I would also just like to amend the resolution to see if there's an update from our resolution around the 325 and 326 service cuts as well.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Best. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Marks, for bringing this forward. I was just wondering if I could amend, I may not have gotten the language quite right, but amend the first motion to have a list of any subsidized units that may be expiring in the next 10 years, because I do recall a meeting where there were a number of units in addition to the 38 that Councilor Marks mentioned that had time limits on the affordability requirements.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, chief. And I actually do have a question or two for Rob. So I hope he'll be, he'll be ready to answer them.
[Zac Bears]: Good. So just jumping into the statistics, real quickly, and I'll get you unmuted, Rob. I haven't had a chance to look at the report. So I'm sorry if I'm asking questions that you actually answer in it. But, you know, that 2020 911 call number really stood out to me. It's such a huge increase. Do you break that down at all? Was a lot of that around medical emergencies, you know, people calling because of they were afraid they're sick with COVID or, you know, any other statistics on why the 911 calls jumped so much?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for that, Chief and Rob. And that makes sense to me, too. It just really stood out as a number, such a huge increase, even with the pandemic. And that takes me right into the next thing. I mean, we had some discussions last year around data and statistics, and I just think it's really encouraging the attitude that we're taking around having good data come in and good data come out and informing decisions. And my other thought was around that bigger bucket of calls. I think you said it was around 35,000 kind of, I don't know if it was calls or inputs. We also were talking about just how much we are asking police to do. you know, beyond criminal matters, and you even brought it up around mediation, right? It's like, well, we don't want to necessarily get involved in that because we have our role. And I was wondering, you know, as well, on that bigger number of calls, did you have a sense of how many of those maybe weren't about criminal matters, and you're getting called out to something that's not a crime, and you might have an issue even being able to deal with it, given your authority? That might be for you or Rob.
[Zac Bears]: So yeah, and you know, you kind of took the words right out of my mouth that, you know, thinking about now that you're able to track referrals and kind of track the different partnerships and have that good data coming in, you know, I might be speculation, but maybe one of the reasons you were doing so much this year is that we don't have enough people doing some of these other work and that work is falling onto you. So I think it could even help us inform budgeting, in a broader sense, how can we get more social workers? How can we make it so you're not writing grants all the time to get these essential positions filled? So thank you for that. And those are my questions and I really appreciate all your work.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Hi, Brian. Just want to say thank you again. I think you really are the poster child for when we ask people to do more with less, you always exceed expectations. And my biggest hope is that we can get you to do more with more, because I think we could just do so much for this community if we could get you some more resources. My only question, and I think Councilor Falco kind of got at it a little bit, is, you know, Do you have an idea of how much staffing, like what staffing level you would really like to see at the department to provide all of these services that we're talking about? You know, I know that the staffing level has gone down over the past several years, and I'm just wondering where would you like to see it come back to? You know, we're always asking about one position, maybe a mechanic, but is there kind of a broader number of how many people you'd like to see staffing DPW?
[Zac Bears]: Right, and I appreciate that. And I think, you know, it goes back to what you're saying, about keeping everyone healthy. Part of that is COVID, but part of that is not having Steve in the truck 60 hours a week, right? So, you know, I might be under counting it too, but thank you for that. And I think that's the kind of visioning we need to think about when we're talking about making sure that our departments have the services, you know, have the resources to provide the services that we need. So thank you, Brian.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Best. Thank you, Mr. President. And I'd just be repeating what everyone else has said, but I think what Marie Cassidy has done for young people and families in this community for so long, can't even be valued, but I do hope that everyone will donate or try to support the virtual celebration. Of course, Marie is giving away her 70th birthday to provide donations to the Medford Family Network, which I think is exactly what we would expect of her. So please support that. It's on Friday, March 26, which I believe is this Friday at 8.30, and there are ways to give online. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. Yeah, just I just wanted to add clarity that section 10 A says the harbormaster of a city or town or whomsoever is so empowered by the said city or town may authorize by permit. So it does allow another entity other than the harbormaster.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Council Vice President Knight. And I wanna thank Councilor Marks that we've been doing. After the thorough work on this and continue to throw work around five G for several years now. I just wanted to put a note in there that we could also move forward. In addition to recommending these changes to the policy move forward with codifying the small cell committee in an ordinance, and we could include some of the many items that I know that this hearing is happening on the 31st, but going forward, I think it would be good to have this all set in stone. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. know, I've had been reached out to by a lot of members of our Asian American Pacific Islander community this week expressing anger and frustration at what's going on in our country and asking for support right here at home. There's a report from the Anti-Defamation League of New England just last week, March 17th, that says we were at an all-time high for white supremacist propaganda since the ADL has been looking at that. and that it increased by 87% in 2020 alone. So I'm hoping that, you know, by taking statements and actions like this, we are directly pushing back on the dangerous rhetoric, and also letting residents know, in this case, Asian American, Pacific Islander residents, that they are welcome here in Medford, and that we don't tolerate that kind of behavior or rhetoric in our community, and I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll keep it short and sweet. We may not all have agreed on what was in the budget, but we could definitely agree that it was easier to read. And I think it's wonderful that Director Nunley-Benjamin and the city administration have been recognized for that work. And I hope to see that continue in the future. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I did not know Mr. McKinnon, but I do wish his family my sympathies and condolences.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I also wanted to thank Councilor Knight for bringing this forward for the exact reason that Councilor Morell just noted, which is I think many of us know friends or family members who have been injured because of negligent operation by motorists and not looking twice and seeing motorcyclists. So thank you, Councilor Knight. And I hope this proclamation is declared.
[Zac Bears]: I apologize. Dave Rodriguez.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And just through the chair, I think when we are doing this, it's important that the item appears on the agenda just for open meeting law. So, you know, if they are coming next week, I think the paper should be on the agenda next week so that the public is adequately informed that this will be discussed.
[Zac Bears]: I think that's an open meeting law violation if it's not posted on the agenda and we're having an update. If we're gonna ask questions and deliberate on items, it has to be on the agenda.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And Mr. President, I'm not disputing that at all. I'm just saying that same paper that was on last week should be on. You know, we if we have a paper on the agenda, sometimes it comes back up on the agenda when we're discussing it again. I'm saying that same paper should appear on the agenda. Uh, because if not, then there's no publicly posted item that they're going to be providing an update. And I think that means that we can't deliberate on the matter.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just wanted to make a point of information that we did discuss this with the representatives from Park Medford a few weeks ago. And that's one of the reasons that councilor Scarpelli put on the agenda, the amnesty program to try to collect some of the uncollected funds. So we are aware of the problem and there have been resolutions to address it. Thank you councilor Best.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to revert to regular business.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. We met last, well, yes, last Monday. And we met regarding a few different papers. We had some updates on the local housing stability initiatives that have been undertaken by this council, by the administration, by the community preservation committee. And we will be having a future meeting on that item discussing eligibility for the rental assistance program and inviting some members of the health department to figure out how we can incorporate housing work into the permanent social work planning that they are conducting. Councilor Falco's housing stability notification ordinance proposal was sent to the solicitor and the director of community development for drafting of an ordinance. And we also will be having a future meeting regarding the health and safety inspections for housing units in the city with health department and building department staff who are responsible for those items.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have any questions? Thank you, Mr. President. And again, Councilor Falco, Councilor Marks, my committee members on public works. We discussed the snow shoveling ordinance, and we currently have a request in with the DPW commissioner regarding priority sidewalks, as well as a request to the city solicitor to review proposed language in the paper regarding a few items. And we will be having a future meeting with members of the administration to continue moving the process forward. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I believe we did have the 7-11 in our packet.
[Zac Bears]: 9-11-0-3-7 report.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Marianne and the entire health department, board of health staff and everybody else. I just had one quick question on the update. Has the state provided any sort of information on what the next expanded phase of vaccination might look like? Is that what these additional regional centers are? Or is that still, are you still waiting for that last minute email?
[Zac Bears]: Right, yeah, and I guess I more meant like, are they talking about more locations, more vaccine, you know, that kind of thing?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Thank you, Mary and I appreciate that I figured that would be the answer. I'm sorry that's what you have to work with.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: I'd like to move to suspend the rules to take papers 21-100 and 21-181.
[Zac Bears]: It's the paper that Councilor Mark sent under suspension, 21-181. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Best. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to Mirian and everyone at the Board of Health and Health Department and all of the volunteers. And just reading through that list, I think it's important that we do it, not just to acknowledge everything you've done, but to, it got me a little choked up just thinking about how far we've come together through all of this. And it's been so hard and so many last minute changes and so much loss. But I also think we've gained a lot of community through this as best as we could and helped so many people.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. Thank you. Just before we vote on the paper, I got a little choked up earlier and I just again wanted to thank everybody. And also, you know, my sister's a frontline worker and I think she's very much appreciated all the health guidelines that have gone out. She works at a bank down in Haines Square and, you know, she's been very grateful that people are wearing masks and the health guidelines are being followed. And, you know, if there's ever an issue, they know who to call. So I just wanted to link those two issues together and just also say, you know, there's a few months ahead of us, still difficult few months. And I think all the work that we've done as a whole community or the whole list of people, everyone in Medford who has stepped up and followed the guidance and leadership of our board of health, you know, we got to see this through, we got to stick it out and you know, all this work can't be for naught. So hopefully fingers crossed, we're a few months away from everybody being vaccinated and thinking about a new normal. And I just implore everybody Let's keep going and make sure that we can actually see the other end of this tunnel. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: What information, Mr. President? What information, Councilor Biss? Just, it's a public records request, not a freedom of information. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And hi, Brian. It's good to see you. you know, I can only echo what my colleagues have said about what you've done for our community and the great work of the West Medford Community Center and how much it's grown and such a, you know, even more vibrant now than it was years ago, which is great. And I, you know, I just like, since we're appointing you, I like to, you know, try to ask a question and just what's a project or something that you'd really like to get started on at Hormel Stadium if you were appointed to the position?
[Zac Bears]: That's fantastic. And I think that's exactly, you know, should have expected that answer from you. So thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Councilor Bears. Thank you, Mr. President. I agree with Councilor Knight's sentiment and I will be supporting the resolution. I'd just like to propose a B paper that also asks how many miles would be resurfaced per year under the initial proposal from the administration? Yes, how many miles per year proposed under the initial capital plan draft? Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you to my colleague, Vice President Knight, for putting this resolution forward. I think it would be interesting and helpful to look at a zero-based budget, but I do have some concerns about so drastically moving from the existing process to the zero-based process. I would like to see maybe both. I know that's a lot of work, but I think it would be helpful to see but what the administration is proposing based on the prior year, and then what a zero-based budget look like, and then we can make an informed decision. So that is just my preference. If we're talking about just looking at a zero-based budget, I will probably vote against this resolution, but again, I appreciate it being brought forward by Vice President Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I've spoken with the building commissioner and this is mostly their residents in the area who are concerned about the status of the building.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. As we heard last week in our financial update. One of the major hits to the potential hits to the budget next year would be a significant loss in charter school funding from about 2 million that we received in this current fiscal year to less than 1 million next year. This is kind of a two part resolution. The first one is around this upcoming state budget. asking our state delegation to advocate for a hold harmless provision, meaning that we wouldn't receive anything less than we received in the previous fiscal year. And the second piece of this, you know, looking at the just looking at this budget, we're sending eight and a half million dollars every year to charter schools. That's almost 5% of the whole city budget. And I think it's important that our delegation advocate for us to try to reduce the impact of that serious hit on our revenues every year. So that is the intent of this resolution. And I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank Councilor Morell for bringing this forward and signing on with her. Um, you know, they come to us from Patrick Gordon and. This is really about, you know this issue of cord cutting right and peg access fees for a long time for our community access stations across the state have been coming through cable companies and cable subscriptions are going down. So this is about assessing, um. that we're going to be able to continue to pay our fees on the streaming services that are replacing in some cases, cable subscriptions and making sure that we still have funding for community access. I know that this, uh, legislation like this has passed in many states, and I also know that these bills are an initiative of many of our community access stations, including Medford Community media. Um so I just think it's an important effort content delivery. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Just in the resolution to our legislative delegation, And I also had an opportunity to speak with Representative Garbaly and Representative Donato, who said that they hadn't heard about the bill, but after seeing this, that they would be interested in signing on. And I'm also sure that Patrick will be sending us updates in the future. He seems very on top of this.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I appreciate Councilor Scarpelli understanding some of the differences of views on this. And personally, I have a different view. I won't be supporting this tonight. I understand where Councilor Scarpelli and my fellow councilors are coming from. But there's a couple things, even over the past weekend, have made me, you know, pretty pretty seriously concerned about, you know, some of some of the rollbacks that are happening and I think in some ways this could be considered one, you know, the public health advice and the best practices since last spring has been that know, if you can reasonably do something without in-person attendance, that you should do that because it protects the people who can't make that choice. It protects the essential workers, it protects the healthcare workers, it protects the teachers. So, you know, that is one piece of this for me. The second piece was the CDC director over the weekend, you know, kind of responding to some of the rollbacks and the increase in some in-person limits and saying, you know, really, this is a dangerous time if we If we wait a couple more months and we have the vaccine rollout really in full progress, it'll be much safer to look at items like this and like that at that point. And, you know, President Biden said the same thing. And then the third piece is I do wonder if we will be able to fully, you know, enforce the CDC guidelines. One of them being, you know, making sure that people keep their masks on when they're talking. And I know that was an issue with a member of the public, you know, a few weeks ago. So that's just where I come from on this. I'm going to be voting no. I appreciate how Councilor Scarpelli presented it. And that's my position. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: We did have Mr. Castagnetti did get on, and I think I saw Kelly Catala's hand as well.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President? Councilor Bears? I'm sorry, are you calling this 21046 or? Yes, I am. All right, great, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I think your point is well taken. Um, you know, if parts of this project are done, can we move to the resurfacing phase? I don't think it really is fair to the community to leave these roads in such condition if they're not going to, you know, if their construction is complete there. And I just wanted to bring up one other point. Um, you know, of the priorities of this council for this session was council communications. And I think Councilor Morell brought up a good point, which is we, you know, this council did the work to make sure that Eversource is providing the updates to the community, but we are still reliant on the administration in order to put any of that information on the city website, you know, for people to see. And I think, you know, what Councilor Marks read as well, you know, that would be very helpful information for residents to have access to, but it's not on the city website. So I hope that as we move forward, we can figure out a way for this council to have more input and control over getting our message out about the good things that we are doing and not be entirely relying on the administration for that. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I put this resolution forward for a few reasons. One of them is the message we received from residents of the alpha management building at 53 to 63 Bellsway West. Um, but I'm also, since that came out, spoken with a lot of residents who have had some issues reporting, um, you know, health or safety concerns to the city and getting, uh, units inspected. Um, so I put this forward because, you know, we really need to make sure the city is fulfilling the responsibility that we have for inspections around safe and healthy housing. Um, we had made some initial progress. Um, I spoke to the city administration last week, um, making it clear on the city website, how to report, um, a complaint and requested inspection, which we can now do, uh, through the online permitting service. So that is one item that has been improved. Um, but we do need to do more to make sure that the city has an effective, responsive and transparent system, uh, for making sure that residents can get health and safety inspections. Um, so. I'm hoping we can look at the issue as a council and take action as the city. And I'm happy to report this either to the housing subcommittee or committee of the whole, whatever my fellow councilors would prefer.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Along a similar vein, This is specifically requesting an update on the issues at 5363 Fells Way West, and I'm hoping to get that update promptly so residents can make sure they're living in safe and healthy conditions.
[Zac Bears]: And I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. As I think we're all very aware, airplane noise has been a severe issue across Medford, especially since the FAA implemented new flight path rules that really channel most of the traffic leaving Logan Airport to the north, right over Medford's residential neighborhoods. There is a new federal administration with President Biden, Secretary of Transportation Buttigieg, and there is a public comment period currently open at the FAA to allow input around airplane noise. And I would like the city administration to submit public comments to that public comment period, indicating that we need relief from the excessive airplane noise that we're seeing in Medford. And I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanna thank Councilor Scarpelli for putting this on our agenda tonight. I think this is really essential I think we've actually heard from most, if not all teachers and teachers unions as well, that they would like to have a good plan in place to get back into the classroom and start addressing some of the mental health impacts that have happened with schools being closed for so long. But it is also simultaneously very frustrating. There's a study out today that says the main driver of COVID spread in schools is the adults, the educators, not the students. However, the CDC is saying it's safe to be in the building if you have social distancing, if you have masking, if you can follow these safety protocols, which kind of conflicts with the idea of going back five days a week with everybody in the classroom. It's very difficult to follow social distancing and safety protocols if you have 30 students in a single classroom. So I really think it's more essential than ever that teachers are moved to the front of this list, especially if the governor's proposals for April reopening start to go forward. So thank you, Councilor Scarpelli, and I second your motion.
[Zac Bears]: What's the amendment from Councilor Marks, just so I'm aware?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to thank my fellow colleagues for putting this on the agenda. And you know, if we paint these lines, the people will come. So I think that's a great way to think about it. And I'm fully in support of this. I'm happy to defer to my fellow councilor.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just a couple of quick questions for the clerk. Are there any major departures on this calendar from previous years?
[Zac Bears]: Great, and do you have any expectations or information around mail-in ballots and early voting?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I just raised that point because it has been a priority of this council to have an elections coordinator hired by the city to take on the additional work of, you know, all of the elections that the clerk's office has been running and the registrar of voters has been running. So thank you for keeping an eye on it. And I just wanted to put that election coordinator idea out there once again. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, a permanent position. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Knight for putting this on the agenda. and I agree, you know, having this process move swiftly and in accordance with the ordinance is important for raising the revenue the city so urgently needs. And I agree with Councilor Knight's request for the conflict of interest letter as well. I just had one question for the administration. I do see Chief of Staff Rodriguez. Was the mayor personally involved in these meetings and setting up this meeting or any of the materials therein?
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President? Councilman Bench? Just kind of a follow-up to that. What staff are supporting the CAC, and did the CAC itself request specific staff support?
[Zac Bears]: I'm just I have one more question. Um, just the previous comments brought up a thought for me. Mr. Rodriguez, are you aware of any impacts of the litigation and Cannabis Control Commission's, you know, discussions around host community agreements and how that might impact the process here?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And my question is through to Chief Staff Rodriguez. Two questions. What is the balance in the special revenue fund currently? And are there any projects in the Wellington area that don't require coordination with the state that you may be coming back to us for approval using these funds?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, we met last week, myself, Councilor Falco and Councilor Marks, along with members of the city administration and residents to discuss housing stability related issues. The first one was on the request by the council for the mayor to implement an eviction moratorium. We had extensive discussion. The legal questions had not been answered any further at that meeting than in the prior We were able to make some connections hopefully between some local residents who have experience in this area with the administration that hopefully will move that along. And we voted unanimously, neither favorably nor unfavorably to report the paper on the eviction moratorium request out to committee of the whole for further discussion. We also discussed the paper 20-302, which regarded some housing stability requests around a task force and we had a good discussion. There's a housing stability working group that is meeting convened by the office of community development and the mayor. We had some input into what the structure of that will look like. And we are planning a future meeting to follow up on that as well as on Councilor Falco's notification ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilor Best. Thank you, Mr. President. I again want to echo my colleagues and thank all of the councilors and city staff who spent many meetings putting this together. I think it's important that we have a commission like this that can integrate behavioral health into all the different city services that we're providing, and hopefully reduce the stigma around talking about behavioral health issues. We've experienced behavioral health issues in my family, and I think it's important that we're able to talk about it and have resources to address it as a community. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Biss? Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilors Knight and Scarpelli for putting this on. I'm thinking of the Moshe family and the environment that they built to bring people of all ages and all backgrounds together around delicious food. And I'm just reminded of one story of a Medford friend who was studying abroad and figured out a way to get two frozen Victor's calzones in their check bag and get it over to Denmark, because that's how much they loved it. Victor's deli and Rose's food. So thank you for putting this on and I'm thinking of the Moshe family.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Marks and my fellow councilors for their comments. You know, I've seen not just the bottom half, but that we're 44th or 48th in the country for vaccinations as a state, which is very disappointing and disappointing management by state government to say the least. And I am aware that the legislature is looking at taking additional action on this. So hopefully there will be more updates on that. just wanted to really support what Councilor Mark said. I think it would be great to have the Board of Health giving a weekly update. I know we requested monthly updates in the fall, but I think at this point it does make sense to we're going to continue to do that. We're going to increase that to weekly and also really want to support the councilor start Kelly said. I think we need a coordinated effort and clear messaging around the vaccination plan for the city that brings together We did, I think, a pretty good job in the springtime of getting housing resources and food resources out with easily shareable graphics online. We had a mailer that went out around some of those resources as well. So I think it's really important that we have that coordinated effort. that we have to let people know exactly what the plan is. I feel that a lot of calls this week as well from people who are confused about how they could get a vaccine appointment. And, you know, I agree we need a plan for Medford. But as of now, I have just continued to point people to ma immunizations.org, which is the state website that subpar but it is the website that the state has created and now to the 2-1-1 hotline that was created late last week. So that that is where I am pointing people now and hopefully we can have an answer on the city's plan and you know a clear coordinated messaging strategy as soon as possible. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Bears. Thank you, Mr. President. I think Councilor Marks brings up a great point. You know, Kim has been acting city solicitor for over a year and we don't have an assistant city solicitor. So, you know, we've been sending a lot of work to that office when they are, you know, down one person at the very least. So I support this as well. I think with the volume of requests for draft ordinances and review of ordinances that we are taking on, which is our job, we need someone dedicated to to working with us on that. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Best. Thank you, Mr. President. And I'd just like to thank Councilor Falco for bringing this forward. I think it's a fantastic idea, something that we really should be doing, making sure that people know their rights. I'm happy to, as the Chair of Elderly Affairs and Housing Subcommittee, to have it there or in Committee of the Whole, whatever Councilor Falco's preference is. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Best. Councilor Morell.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for offering paper 20-581 last October. As many people know, we currently do not have an option for residents to dispose of hazardous waste. We are not members of the Lexington Consortium, which means that due to COVID-19, residents cannot go to that facility because we are not members. Paper 20-581 asked for an update and asked for us to join the Lexington Consortium. That was passed unanimously on October 9th, 2020. Many residents who were asking about it then are still asking about it now. And I'd just like to get an update from the city administration on what options we are providing to residents for hazardous waste disposal. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Bears. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilor Morell for taking the lead on this. I think you really captured it. But, you know, I think it's on us as the city government to figure out reasonable you know, regulations around this issue. I've been hearing about it a lot as well from residents before the pandemic and especially now during the pandemic with people at home trying to do their job or trying to learn at school. So, you know, I think we can find a reasonable approach that really provides relief to residents who are, you know, dealing with leaf blowers and can address this so that we can have a safer and healthier community going forward. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I mean, I was just going to, when I raised my hand to speak to this exact question, I don't think the intent is here to say we must go all electric and we must ban all gas leaf blowers. I think it's specifically that we have commercial grade leaf blower use in the community, as it says in the ordinance, sorry, in the resolution, and then we should establish an ordinance around that. And that, you know, I think to Councilor Scarpelli's point could be about the manner in which gas leak floors are allowed to be used or not, right? Like we do need to have a study on the issue. And I think we do understand, you know, that there are a variety of stakeholders with a variety of concerns, but the intent, at least when I signed on to this, and I believe Councilor Morell just said it too, to say we are going all electric and we're banning gas leaf blowers, but to say, are there time and manner restrictions that we might want to have in place to reduce the burden on our community? No intent here, I believe, from either of us around banning all uses. Although if we were to study it and come up with that conclusion, maybe that would be interesting. But that's just where I'm coming from on this.
[Zac Bears]: Come to me, sir. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to assure Mr. Castagnetti that I know what a snow shovel is. I was out before our Committee of the Whole with one and I'll be out after this meeting as well with a snow shovel. And we rake as well. But I just want to say, you know, there's been a lot of putting words in people's mouths tonight. I don't think that's a productive way to have a discussion. So I hope we study the issue, and I'm just glad that somebody used a cut and dry metaphor to discuss this issue. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussions on this?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Bears? I just wanted to make a quick announcement, remind people we do have committee of the whole tomorrow on council priorities. And we have a elderly and housing affairs subcommittee meeting on Thursday regarding an update from the administration on the eviction moratorium and working with the solicitor on the housing stability task force.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Council Member. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Vice President Knight for bringing this forward, and I agree with my fellow Councilors. It's imperative that Amazon is providing good union jobs in our community, especially when they're disrupting so many of our small businesses. And you know, really, as Councilor Morell said, and Councilor Knight lowering the bar. So I'm strongly supportive of this, and I do think just a special point needs to be made that their labor practices are really devious, and they're tracking people down to the second, and these workers deserve better. They deserve a union and they deserve a living wage. So I hope that we can help move this forward as a council. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. This resolution is put forward, one, because just you can see that the crosswalks there are fading a little bit, but also some resident concerns in the area that the changes at South Street and Main Street might lead to additional car traffic on Winthrop Street, and it's already difficult to cross the street there for pedestrians, and there's a concern that that might get worse. So the intent of this resolution is to make sure the crosswalks are repainted and also to explore the city administration to explore any additional signage or other pedestrian safety measures at this location, just to make sure that residents can cross the street safely. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely, and they're no longer relevant, correct? True, he can't, with the change, so. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: I was just wondering, Councilor Knight, have you received any communication from the city administration as, you know, or is the assumption that there's been no commission formed?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Bears.
[Zac Bears]: I think he needs to unmute himself.
[Zac Bears]: Yep.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, Councilor Bez. Thank you. And just to Councilor Knight's point, I think it's great that, you know, we're finally going to be calling this Pomp's Wall and putting the name to the person who built it, because I can remember even, you know, I think it was 2002 when we were doing projects, you know, in the third grade about Medford Historical Sites, it was called the Slave Wall. And I think we learned about Pomp But I think it's really, I think it's good that this whole project will move the sign, allow access to the wall and give it the proper name. So I thank you for raising that point.
[Zac Bears]: Move approval, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: You're welcome. Councilor Bears. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Doug and Jennifer and the whole historical commission. My question is reading through the application. It mentions that access to Palm's wall is difficult due to shrubbery and overgrowth. Would part of this project be addressing access to Palm's wall from inside the park?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Doug. And I just, again, I think this is a really important project. I can remember in third grade, down at the Hervey School, this was one of the, you know, the Pomp's Wall was one of the locations that our intrepid third grade students were assigned to take a video about and talk about. So, you know, it's really important that people can access it. And I'm really encouraged by this. And if the archeological dig goes forward and you find any gold or gemstones, I hope you'll let the city know.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleagues for putting this on the agenda. Um, and I just want to echo. I think the concerns that all three of them have raised, um, hearing from so many residents who have been so deeply involved in this process for several years and the council working with residents diligently to secure conditions that the neighborhood would be comfortable with. And now here we are kind of at the I think the finish line of getting this open and now residents are feeling, I think, a little bit burned that what they have now is not what they expected. So I really hope we can address some of these immediate concerns. And I'm also hopeful if our zoning recodification is approved, that there are some tools in there around Dover amendment and site plan review. that at least going forward, if there are any new proposals, we may have a little bit more, a few more tools in our toolbox to address this as well. So thank you again to my fellow councilors, and I hope we can address these issues, especially, it was just shocking to hear about, you know, lights beaming into your house in the middle of the night. I really hope we can address that. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Bez. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for your presentation, Ryan. I know you mentioned reducing the intensity of the lighting by about 50% at night. Have you been able to figure out how that would compare with the lighting situation prior to the replacement or installation of the new lighting? You know, is it still brighter even at 50% than it was before?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, yeah, that's a key issue. And I'd like to try to keep the environment the way it was prior to the project began. Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, I see a couple of people on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: I found the clerk's work fastidious and precise, and I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: We have another, Councilor Bears. Thank you, Mr. President. I fully agree with Councilor Marks' motion, and I'd like to propose a B paper that we get an update from the City Treasurer on on-time and late payments for fiscal year 2021.
[Zac Bears]: I was looking for percentage of payments or percentage of properties that were paying on time. I'd be happy to entertain other metrics. Total balance would be good too.
[Zac Bears]: That's fine with me. Thank you, Councilor Falco.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Bez. Thank you, Mister President. And thank you, Councilor Falco, for proposing this. I wholeheartedly agree with having these pre-budget meetings. And I think hopefully, similar to what Councilor March just said, we can really use these to start setting goals of what services and the level of staffing are needed for our various city departments and our school department and how each budget is helping us get there and what the gaps are. That's really something I've been talking about since day one on the council for myself is we need to assess need and understand what the community actually needs with services. One of the major issues with city finance and municipal finance in Massachusetts, as everyone knows, is that Proposition 2.5 limits revenue growth to 2.5% a year, while our costs and our fixed costs are going up much more than 2.5% a year, which means that the amount of money we have to provide city services goes down or is crowded out by these fixed costs. So figuring out how we can stop having departments that are trying to do too much with too few staff, setting goals for what that department staffing should look like, and then seeing every year how each fiscal year's budget can help us achieve that goal, I think is very important undertaking that we as a council can do. And I would also ask just to councilor Scarpelli's amendment. You know, if there are department heads who may not want to attend in person, as long as you know, just that they have the discretion to make that decision, if that's all right, councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just if, you know, if there may be a department head who might, an option to come in person, but if they want to come by digital means.
[Zac Bears]: I amend it as well, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. My amendment was just that in-person attendance would be at the discretion of the individual employee.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. Councilor Best. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, Republic Parking and Park Medford are also, you know, do have some responsibility around ticketing in areas with permits and addressing vehicles that are left, you know, over the 48 hour limit. So I do think there'll be some questions there. And I have some questions myself for Park Medford around that as I've been fielding, you know, people will call me and then I will call Park Medford and then they'll go deal with something. And, you know, it'd be nice if they were, a little more strict about enforcement, and I think that would also affect the financial update as well. So, you know, there are probably some good questions and information from that commission that could help us in that meeting. So, I would support the amendment.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think as many people in our community were feeling devastated a couple of weeks ago when we saw the the temple of our democracy ransacked by a mob. And that was just awful to watch. And I think it speaks to a larger issue in our country around respecting democracy and understanding that the democratic process is how decisions are made. And as a democratic body, as a local council of our community in Medford, I think it's important for us to speak up for peaceful transitions of power, which we have every two years here at Medford, respect for the rule of law and respect for our institutions of democracy. So that's the intent I had putting this forward. I am looking forward tomorrow to a transition of power, peaceful transition of power in our country. And I think it's the responsibility of all elected officials across the country to stand up for that, regardless of party or belief, because we are the stewards of a very important institution, an institution that we've seen is deeply at risk over the past several years. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Bears, who are we sending this to? I'm happy to send it to our federal delegation. I believe that... They were in the building.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it was. It was really hard to hear some of those stories. I'd be happy to send it to them, but I think it's important for us as a council to make our position on the issue clear to our community.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. Well, I think Mr. President, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. This resolution is regarding COVID vaccination sites in Medford. I did have a chance to speak with Chief of Staff Rodriguez, who let me know that sites are being explored. funding is being lined up and there are hopes to open at least one site in our community within weeks, not within months. Um, he said that, uh, per the resolution passing, if it passes the council, they will provide a more detailed updated writing, which I look forward to reading, but I do think it's a current thing.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Ntuk. Councilor Bears. You know, I think this is specific to mass vaccination sites in the community, which I'm encouraged to see should be coming soon.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, on the motion by Councilor Mizz. Councilor Mizz. If I may just add to Councilor Marks' point, the state government and the federal government's lack of a plan was one of the major points of concern that Chief of Staff Rodriguez had, so I fully agree with Councilor Marks that it's really a shame that the state is not more prepared. Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I agree wholeheartedly.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Bears. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to let residents and Councilor Scarpelli know we will be having a subcommittee on elderly and housing affairs next Wednesday, the 27th, to get an update from the mayor on the eviction moratorium and where the mayor's office is. Yes, Councilor Scarpelli is correct, the mayor is the person who could issue this order. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: On a B paper. Second, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Just, I'm seconding Councilor Falco's B paper.
[Zac Bears]: Any, any further discussion? Mr. President. Councilor Biz. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilor Marks, for bringing this forward and keeping us on track. And Councilor Falco, Councilor Scarpelli, I will say I live nearby and was able to drive up there. And it was the first time I actually felt confident driving at the intersection of Fells Vista and Fulton Springs. So I think the improvements are good, but we need to keep going. Um, I couldn't quite tell if this was included in another amendment. Um, but I would also like to know if, uh, the, to amend the paper to ask, uh, the police department if they have done increased enforcement in the area and, uh, if there's any data or, um, you know, anecdotal data about, uh, what kind of traffic stops they're making in the area. Thank you, Councilor Buenaventura. Any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. Councilor Bears. Could that be a B paper, since it's a different topic than the water and sewer? If you'd like it to be a B paper, that's fine. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, Thank you, Mr. President. Through the President, Mr. Piccinini, just wondering what got you interested in the Community Preservation Committee and what would you look forward to doing as part of the committee?
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. Yeah, thank you. I think, you know, that's one of the major charges of the CPC. So I'm glad to have someone on board who is thinking about how we can make our great open spaces even better for our residents. So thanks. Thanks for answering my question.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Thank you to my colleagues, Councilor Caraviello, Councilor Marks for meeting last week in subcommittee on elderly and housing affairs. We were discussing papers 20-300 and 20-302. The first paper looks at some housing stability options that we can take as a city. The housing stability task force being one of the main ones discussed. And 20-302 is a motion I filed to request that the mayor implement an eviction moratorium in the community. We had a robust discussion between the councilors and also members of the administration and members of the public. We kind of set up some follow-up steps. Solicitor Scanlon was not able to be with us that evening. So I am reaching out to her to see the progress on a draft ordinance around the housing stability task force. the mayor and the office of community development said that they would send some data regarding housing stability calls to the subcommittee. And we agreed that we would meet again, two weeks from January 5th. So sometime next week to discuss. all of those updates, as well as updates from the mayor's office on the eviction moratorium in further detail. And just today, we received subcommittee appointments. President Caraviello, now being the president, is being replaced by Councilor Falco. So I'm going to be reaching out to that new subcommittee to schedule a meeting next week to follow up on those topics that we discussed. Thank you, Councilor Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Just if we could, could we also invite the city solicitor? Um, I know, um, former Councilor Penta mentioned some programs, but they were out of state programs. So I just want to make sure that, you know, we even have the legal authority to do something like this in Massachusetts compared to, you know, Florida or other States. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm voting present.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Bears. Thank you, Mr. President. I think Attorney Abruzzese already answered this pretty succinctly, but I just want to confirm, there wouldn't be anybody coming to browse or looking at any inventory or anything like that, right?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. We talked about this actually a little bit in reference to rental assistance funds in our subcommittee meeting earlier this evening, but essentially this relief bill has passed. There should be some impact on funding for our city or the state. And when the administration has an answer, I know that they were mentioning they were waiting to get some figures back from the state and some estimates. I don't know if you want to go into that more, Chief of Staff Rodriguez, but when you have that information, it would be great to get an update as a council.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I know we tabled this for one week last week. I do want to thank health director O'Connor for sending a pretty detailed memorandum to the council, answering some of our questions and discussing some of the mitigation strategies and plans that they are undertaking given the new surge upon surge of coronavirus cases in the city. Do we have the health director on the call or a representative of the city administration?
[Zac Bears]: It would be great to just hear maybe a, this is a detailed memo, so I don't know if you'd have to go through all of it, but maybe mentioning some of the highlights, especially around mitigation and enforcement.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just want to say thank you. I think that was a great summary. I'm sure that councilors will have questions. But I just want to say thank you again, Mary. And I know this has been an unimaginable nine months. It's been very difficult on everyone in the city and on our Board of Health. So I just want to thank you for everything you've been doing. for this past year to keep Medford residents safe and hopefully the next few months we will have good vaccine distribution and be able to start looking at the other side of this and not have more cases and more deaths in our community and serious long-term illness over the next few months. So thank you, Marianne, again for for that summary is much appreciated. And I know that things are changing constantly. And I think it's just important as a council that we can do whatever we can to keep ourselves and the community updated on the latest ways that we are taking action to keep the community safe. Thanks, Marianne.
[Zac Bears]: It's heard loud and clear, and I thank everyone, volunteers, staff, everyone who's been putting in overtime for a year to keep Medford safe. Thank you to everyone.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be brief and then happy to turn it over to Councilor Scarpelli. But I just filed this to commend the fantastic work of Medford Community Media. Patrick, Kat, and everyone else who have done so much with a limited budget and received an award. And they're keeping us connected via Zoom for council meetings, getting information out to the public, coronavirus information, and really just doing whatever they can to use Medford Community Media as a resource at this time. So I think it's a well-earned reward, and I'm happy to hear from my fellow councillor who I think agrees with me.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: We held the subcommittee meeting on the matter at the So I filed 2302 on April 7th, which is similar. We held a subcommittee on April 25th discussing both 20-300 and 20-302. And by then, the state bill had passed. So we discussed it in the subcommittee. The state bill had passed. We didn't take action on it at that time. So because the state had taken action in lieu of the request that I had made, that has now expired. We did support on 1013-20-595, which is to support the Housing Stability Act, which would reinitiate the eviction moratorium at the state level. That's been almost three months since our resolution was passed, and that bill has not seen action. So I understand what you're saying. I think it's a different time. the context of the subcommittee meeting we had was that the state had taken action. So it was in the report, the report was sent up here, and the report was approved. It is my first year, but my understanding is that we had taken that issue, placed it on file as part of the report.
[Zac Bears]: So if I may, thank you, Mr. President. Um, yeah, and I understand where we're coming from. I'm, you know, it's been nine months. We filed it early in the pandemic. There was intervening circumstances. So that's why I'm bringing it back up now. I'm also bringing it back up because I have heard from several residents that evictions are ongoing. Uh, one of the issues that we've been having, uh, both with raft and with the emergency, City level emergency assistance fund has been in some cases that large property managers and certain landlords, you know, there has to be an agreement there between everybody to understand this money is going towards rent. And sometimes those agreements have not been made. So, you know, there have been active cases. date set for evictions, you know, that's why I brought this back up.
[Zac Bears]: Sure.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, it's an emergency. So that's why I put it on this agenda for us to ask the mayor to take action. It's an emergency. You know, people are being removed from their homes. I'm happy to try to schedule meeting after the holidays in several weeks when how many more people may have been evicted, I don't know. So there is a sense of urgency as to why I put it on the agenda. I understand your reasoning. I may not fully agree with it. But there's been massive evidence that lifting eviction moratoriums, taking them away, has actually led and driven a rise in cases and a rise in deaths. So all it is is to ask the mayor to take action. So I'm happy to delay this for several weeks and see what happens and try to hold a meeting.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, just point of information.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Mr. President. Yeah, how this would work is it wouldn't actually prevent notices from being filed in court. It would just prevent the end of the process, the removal, and the federal eviction moratorium is partial. It doesn't actually apply to a vast majority of households. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information.
[Zac Bears]: I agree with Councilor Marks completely. I've actually been calling the administration on this regularly for the past nine months. And I think the intent of the resolution that was ruled out of order was that we would add our voices to that chorus of folks who are putting pressure on the administration. You know, the mechanism that would be used here delegated to the executive and the Board of Health through Mass General Law. So, you know, it's not actually something that we as a council can do, which is what was the intent. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, just a point of information. We did act on October 13th, asking the state to reinstate the moratorium. So we did take action then. And I would be glad if my Councilors are available to meet at the earliest opportunity next week, if they're available. I haven't heard.
[Zac Bears]: Well, actually, I think, Councilor Marks, I've been following up, trying to get responses to the resolutions that we put forward so that we could have another meeting. They haven't been forthcoming. I'd be happy to have another meeting at the earliest opportunity.
[Zac Bears]: I just would say, I think the legislative record and the items put forward reflect that at multiple points, not only has the council had resolutions before it, but has taken action. So I just want to make that point.
[Zac Bears]: I am personally aware of 12 ongoing cases. I have been trying to get that information, but have been unsuccessful.
[Zac Bears]: I said that I'm personally aware of about a dozen cases. I've been trying to get the specific information for weeks and have, you know, I've been looking through various datas to try to get a specific number, but have not been successful.
[Zac Bears]: Ongoing cases, Steve. I don't know that they've actually been removed from their homes.
[Zac Bears]: the Massachusetts general law delegates authority around this matter to the board of health and the mayor's office.
[Zac Bears]: That was my intent.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I want to acknowledge that we did get a written update today from a health director O'Connor on this topic. I would like to motion to table this until next week so that we can have that presented.
[Zac Bears]: I believe, yeah. I mean, my email has been a little, city email has also been having issues. So I've not been able to send emails. I don't know if everyone has received it, but I got an email around 4.30. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, motion to table for one week.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, while we're under suspension. Mr. President, while we're under suspension, Mr. President. 20-656.
[Zac Bears]: All on the same page.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to echo Vice President Caraviello's statement. I think it's great that we're having commercial investment in the community. And I have my general concerns about TIPS as a development strategy. But I think in this case, after review and after the questions, that have been asked and answered, it seems like a good move for this specific case and this specific project. One thing I do want to add, I think 250 jobs is a great benefit to our community. I think that that would be an even stronger benefit if many of those were union jobs. As we know, unionized jobs pay a higher prevailing wage. And that's something that we really need in this community, considering the cost of living. So I would like to motion that the council would send the following language to the city administration for potential inclusion in this agreement pending review by legal counsel and whatever the administration deems necessary. And I can read the language when the clerk is ready. The language will just be monogram foods will not contest any efforts by workers at this facility to unionize using card check or any other legally authorized mechanism to establish a collective bargaining unit. And again, sending that language over to the city administration for their review and discussion for potential inclusion in the agreement. I was encouraged to hear from Mr. Modica that some of the facilities that Monogram operates are unionized, so I would hope that this would be more of a formality than needing to be enforced if workers were to unionize, but I do think it's important that we try to make sure that as many jobs in our community as possible are good union jobs, where workers get the benefits of being in a collective bargaining unit. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: It's a motion to send language to the city administration for potential inclusion in the agreement.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: And Mr. President, if I may.
[Zac Bears]: Just to clarify on the B paper, absolutely pending legal council review or any other it would be at the administration's discretion to ask Solicitor Scanlon about the language. So that's my intent in this motion. Second, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I actually do have a couple of questions on Middlesex Avenue. The first one is for Director Hunt or Engineer Blake, which is, is Middlesex Avenue on any schedule or list for upgrades or repair by MassDOT already?
[Zac Bears]: Would that include resurfacing, Tim?
[Zac Bears]: That would be helpful. Thanks, Tim. And then this general question for all three of you as well. And we just haven't brought it up, but the MBTA right-of-way, there's a train right-of-way that runs right next to this property, actually between BJ's and this property. It's very old. It's the old Medford Branch Railway that used to come down into Medford Square. If you go on Park Street, there's a bridge, and there's a bridge over the Fellsway. It's just kind of a pet interest of mine. Is there any discussion about use or reuse of that right-of-way that's been mentioned to any city department, as far as you know?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Thank you. And thanks, Alicia, in advance.
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate you indulging me and asking these questions. And my last one, is there any non-bike or pedestrian or any light rail or heavy rail potential for that right-of-way that's been mentioned or discussed?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to revert to the regular order of business.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to Councilor Marks, Mr. Navarre, and to all my colleagues, you know, What we're talking about here are different ways of adjusting the distribution of the taxes that we currently assess on the community. We've done the same thing for a long time, and we've seen some negative externalities on the commercial side, especially, that I think a lot of people don't like. So I think it is time to reassess. Another piece of this, though, is the amount that we have to spend as a city on city services, which, as we all know, too low that every department is understaffed our schools and every city department doesn't have the resources it needs and I think in addition to exploring the residential factor and also I think the residential exemption there may be a combination of these tools with the distribution and the tools at our disposals to increase revenue that would allow us to have a just distribution for the people of Medford, commercial and residential both, property owners, as well as raising the revenue that we need, as I mentioned, and I essentially mentioned this during our budget conversation in June, to increase the revenue that we have for city services so that we can provide to the people of Medford the services that they deserve. And I think that's a conversation that's long overdue, so I hope that that As part of the conversations around the tax rate and the budget, we can have an honest conversation about the unmet needs of our community when it comes to city services, as well as the distribution of the tax assessment. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to adopt a residential exemption.
[Zac Bears]: I just also want to add that it would be great to get figures. We have kind of estimates right now. I think if we had that historical data, it would present a much clearer picture, as Councilor Marks indicated. But the flip side is that there are as many as 11,000 properties that could benefit. So it's definitely a difficult decision. That's our job is to make difficult decisions. But I think it's important that we talk about costs and benefits as well. Probably many seniors who are in that 11,000. So we really need to have the facts in front of us to make an informed decision on the residential exemption. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: No.
[Zac Bears]: No.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, while we're under suspension, motion to take paper 20-639.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to take paper 2639 under suspension. It's right above or on the prior page to the text.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to thank Adam and Reverend Wendy and everyone else who spoke. I just wanted to add that there were a number of letters from members of our community attesting to Mr. LaRusso's both skill and also devotion to our community. And I think that those testimonies speak volumes. So I'm supportive of this. Tonight, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: And Adam, you didn't come here for business advice, but I'll give a little marketing advice anyway. Given your market, it might add to the brand exclusivity to do that. So I think it might be a smart decision all around. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, is there a B paper?
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Caraviello will have a B paper.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, motion to revert to the regular order of business.
[Zac Bears]: And this is to Ms. Cuddy or Mr. McGivern. What is the cost amount we're talking about in terms of potential mitigation, like Councilor Marks just mentioned?
[Zac Bears]: Just to answer, to get an answer to the question, what's the difference between the cost of the full curb-to-curb resurfacing and the patching that you will be doing?
[Zac Bears]: Mr. McGibbon has an answer. I mean, I can give you an estimate.
[Zac Bears]: We're not talking seven-figure million dollars worth of work, no.
[Zac Bears]: But either way, it would be under a million dollars.
[Zac Bears]: All right. And Miss Cuddy, what was the annual profit of National Grid last year?
[Zac Bears]: I think it's in the billions of dollars. And then where is National Grid headquartered? The international headquarters?
[Zac Bears]: But I did want to say that... No, where is National Grid headquartered internationally?
[Zac Bears]: But where is the corporate ownership? Where do they live? England.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. So there's like billions of dollars in profits from a foreign company, and we can't spend less than a million dollars on a street in Medford. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Not a question, just a comment. I want to thank the chairs and the members of the commission for taking on this difficult project. And I look forward to seeing what you come up with. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I was heartened today that there has now been action from Governor Baker on, he's rolled us back to phase three, step one, given the concerning statistics, concerning is an under, underwhelming word to use. COVID cases across the state are double what they were during the spring lockdown, both in terms of daily cases and the seven day average. It's rising exponentially. Two thirds, 67% of Massachusetts ICU beds are already occupied. That's closer to 90 to 95% in Rhode Island. Tens of thousands of cases and hundreds more, if not thousands more deaths are expected. And we've had some major clusters here in Medford. So yes, Governor Baker reverted to phase three, step one today. But we weren't even at phase one when we had half as many cases in the spring. So, you know, it really does present some serious health dangers to thousands of residents and I would say thousands of residents here in Medford. I would just like an update by next week at our December 15th meeting on any actions the city is able to take on mitigation. I understand that it's essential that we follow the state guidelines in terms of phases. We're not going to be able to address the spread of this disease alone if other communities are not doing it with us. But I think there are a lot of steps that could be taken like a robocall before the holidays to remind people to stay safe, to meet gathering limits. You know, we've, we're basically just now starting to see the Thanksgiving spike in COVID cases across the state. And we don't want to double down over the December holidays. And, you know, we have months ahead and we have the winter months ahead before a vaccine gets distributed. And I think the last thing we want to see is Massachusetts and quite frankly, the entire country, you know, coming into the train station, having just lost more people and had more cases in the past few months than we did in our first spike and second spike earlier this year. So that's really the intent, is for both written and verbal update from the administration on anything that they are doing and that, you know, any actions that they are taking. And I think, to me, a big piece of that should be what guidelines and suggestions are we making to people for how they should, you know, gather or not gather during the holidays. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. And I, I miss, I did not include it in here, but a written and verbal update is the language I used in my next resolution, but I would like that for this resolution as well. And I agree with councilor Knight for any update that this council receives.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, if I may, and I support all of those amendments, and that was actually kind of more my intent with this next resolution, but I'm happy to have an amendment on this resolution wherever it needs to be. What does enforcement mean? That's really the question I have here, you know, and it's, I'm going to talk more about it on the next item, but there's just rumors and and I think we've all seen some of the less factual ones that seem to have been out there recently. We need clarity. What does enforcement mean? How is that being communicated? And is it being administered equitably across everyone in the community? So I support Councilor Falco's amendments, and that's my intent with both this resolution and the next resolution. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I took the liberty of looking at the property database and all of those lots are privately owned. None of them are owned by the city of Medford or state agencies. So I'd like to make an amendment if acceptable that DPW at least explore I don't know what our options are here, but yeah, well, yeah, there you go. That's the, that's the phrase I was looking for. Explore the liens on, on their tax bills to address the condition of the property and the fact that the city had to come in and clean it up. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to revert to the regular order of business.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Very similar to the discussion we were just having. I think it's really important. especially given the surge in cases and as we've seen rumors flying about across the city about various clusters. What is the city's policy around enforcement? How is it being enforced? And I'm not encouraging or discouraging any specific type of enforcement. I just think it's very important that residents know what the city is doing around health and safety rules and regulations. I think the most important thing is that we're helping people to understand the rules and regulations and how they can be followed before any violations occur. But obviously, if messages are going out with organizations being named or people being named, I think it's important that that policy is a blanket policy and applies equitably to any situation or any case where such a communication is deemed necessary. And I'd also like to know if there's anything ongoing. I know that the word investigations has been thrown around a little bit recently. That's the motion. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: You skipped 665, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think one of the greatest tragedies of this pandemic is that we haven't been able to mourn people that we've lost either to COVID-19 or to other, you know, causes of death during this pandemic. And from what we know from past incidents like this, and there's actually been very little that's happened as quickly as this has, the COVID-19 death rate is faster on a daily basis than any war in the history of the United States. The Civil War is an example of a very similar lack of being able to mourn, and it impacted people's lives for a very long time. So the intent here is that we would have a memorial of some kind to the pandemic, to the people who we've lost, and also to people, I think, who may suffer the rest of their lives due to the disease. But I don't want to, say, put any timelines on that. I was hoping that we would be discussing this, you know, maybe closer to being on a path to vaccination and on the other side of this pandemic. But I, you know, I put it forward as the idea has been discussed and come up. And I think it's just important that we acknowledge that it's something that we want to do as a community to acknowledge and give ourselves some space to mourn this collective tragedy once the pandemic restrictions are lifted. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'm sorry, yes.
[Zac Bears]: I would be happy to defer to Councilor Morell. Councilor Morell.
[Zac Bears]: And I would just add that it's actually a cost savings to the restaurants and businesses as well, because they're not just giving away these utensils and other materials that they're purchasing and may never be used. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: The intent was for take-out and delivery.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, I don't. Yes, it was just the idea that sometimes you get 10 forks and knives stuck in a bag, and you don't need them. And if you need them, you could just say, can you add forks and knives to the delivery order is essentially the intent. I mean, given the conditions and also the staff enforcement levels that we are able to operate in the city, I think this would largely be more of a guidance and a suggestion or, you know, I do not think that we will have someone in every restaurant enforcing the, you know, utensil policy with the severe, you know, I think it's more to say, you know, this is something that's easy to do. You may not be doing it. It helps a lot, given the fact that the rise in takeout and delivery is so much higher. You know, there were, when we had full in-restaurant dining, indoor dining, most people were getting silverware at the restaurant, right? Now, a lot more people are doing takeout and delivery instead of eating indoors. So, you know, usually when you get something delivered or you take something out, it comes home, you have silverware at home. Then you have four plastic forks and knives in your bag, too, and they end up being unused or stuffed in a drawer at best, if not just immediately thrown away. So that was the intent of this resolution.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, I'd be happy to only provide plastic utensils, straws, and stirrers. for takeout and delivery upon the request of the customer.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, I think functionally a lot of our policies are not enforced fully. That was just a statement that I was making in general, because we don't have the resources to do that. If changing the word policy to guidance would make Councilors more amenable to moving this forward, I personally would be happy to do that. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'd be happy to propose that I amend the words a policy to guidance.
[Zac Bears]: Is there a second? Okay, so technically under Robert's rules, once discussion has occurred, there is a second. I'm just saying that technically under Robert's rules, once discussion has occurred, it functions as a second.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, motion to waive the reading. I would be happy to provide a brief summary. Prior, I was also going to make a motion to send it to the solicitor for review before holding a committee of the whole meeting. But I would be happy to provide a brief summary if.
[Zac Bears]: Essentially, back in January, I filed a paper requesting that the city solicitor develop a framework for an ordinance around regulations for short-term rentals. The Acts of 2018 by the Massachusetts General Court, the Mass General Laws, allow the city to implement regulations around short-term rentals, including a registry. This would complement the vote we took earlier this year to charge an excise tax to short-term rental properties in the community. I based this ordinance, which is pretty lengthy, as you can see, both on the solicitor's framework as well as ordinances in Boston and Salem But I did, I think, strike a balance different from both of those ordinances in this proposed ordinance for sake of time and the fact that this is one of the last things on the agenda. I would make a motion to send this draft to the solicitor for review and then hold a committee of the whole with the building commissioner, finance director, community development director, and city solicitor after it has been reviewed. Mr. President, similar papers are already in the ordinance committee.
[Zac Bears]: I understand that Councilor Knight has introduced resolutions on this as well. The item discussed in the ordinance subcommittee, while I'm not a member of the subcommittee, I believe was the paper we received from the city solicitor outlining a draft framework for a short-term rental ordinance, which is what this council requested in January. As I was the filer of that request, and then we received a draft framework, which in my opinion was still very It was more a list of questions than a framework. My assumption from that was that that was the product of the solicitor. And so I went ahead using that framework and other ordinances to draft a draft ordinance. I'm not a member of the ordinances subcommittee. And my intent here, I'd be happy to strip out sending it to the solicitor review and just have a committee of the whole on this. That's fine. She was part of the process that I initiated with my motion. She sent a framework. I developed a draft based on that framework. I did not think it would be unreasonable to send that back to her, considering that she's been part of this chain of events, but I would be happy to adjust my motion just to have a committee of the whole on this matter with the people I suggested.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, yes.
[Zac Bears]: I just, if I may, I do not care what process we go through. I want to achieve this goal, which we've been trying to achieve for a while. I'm happy to do that in any way that my fellow Councilors want to do. I think that this language reflects good research, and it could be a good baseline. I have not seen a proposed ordinance based on the Medford Code of Ordinances. That's why I took the liberty of drafting this as a councilor. And I did not mean any ill intent by proposing it on this agenda, or to subvert any existing processes, or erase any existing motions. So if the council thinks that the Subcommittee on Ordinances is the place to discuss this, that's fine. I don't know how I will be able to have input on that discussion, but that's fine with me, too. I just want to get something done. So I will withdraw my motion in favor of the motion on the subcommittee on ordinances. But there's no subterfuge here. This is just language and research that I did and wrote out to put before the council to try to advance this issue forward. I think it's reasonable. I think it's balanced. I think upon further review, people will find that this is a good approach for the city and reflects the prior motions that have been made around the issue. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, Mr. President. I truly did not think these would be the three controversial issues of the night.
[Zac Bears]: I found the records adequate, and there's approval.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Congratulations.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think what Councilor Mark said and what Mayor Legault-Kern previously said actually gets to the heart of the issue around this paper. I don't think there's any disagreement with hiring a 911 supervisor or whatever else is needed to make sure that this office has everything it needs to function effectively. But that's not the decision that this council has. We can't just hire, approve the 9-1-1 supervisor. It's been lumped into a large package, and that package has been tabled. So I'd like to ask the mayor, if the mayor's still here, do you intend to put a standalone 9-1-1 supervisor item before the council, or will a revised appropriation be put before the council to address the issues that we've laid out?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, well, Councilor Knight's right. I mean, that's one way out of this as one option. And I would think we'd all be happy to vote for approving a standalone paper. I think the other option would be to have a revised paper that reflects the request of this council so that we're not throwing out anything else that's in the appropriation that we might want to approve as well. So it sounds to me like the answer to my question is no. There isn't an intent to put a standalone paper. We're going to use existing funds. Does the administration have any intent to revise supplemental appropriation before this council, before the end of the year?
[Zac Bears]: So if we don't approve that tonight, what's going to happen? Is the intent just that we will no longer appropriate any of the funds that have been proposed in the supplemental budget?
[Zac Bears]: All right. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I would hope that it could be done faster than that. But in any case, just to Director Nunley-Benjamin, If we do not, and this is just going off of what Councilor Knight was saying earlier, if we do not approve the supplemental appropriation, it will not affect the revenues for next fiscal year. Is that correct?
[Zac Bears]: Right. And then the free cash would come in at the end of the fiscal year. Got it. I just wanted to make that clear for myself. I think we're still at an impasse, to be quite frank. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I've done a dive on this, done some research around TIFs. I spoke with Maria from MOBD as well. You know, and from what I've understood, these have been used as an incentive to address areas of low demand, areas of blight, kind of that's the intent here. I wouldn't necessarily say that Medford is an area of low demand or an area of blight. I know this has, you know, bakery has not been operated in for a little while, so there might be a little wiggle room there. But, you know, that's one of the concerns I have. And also in my research and speaking with MOBD, it does seem that tips are mostly going to large corporations versus looking at small businesses. So that's another area of concern that I have in general around the process. I do have a couple questions for Mr. Monica from Monogram Foods. The first of which is, have you discussed or would you consider any curbing, driveway, or traffic improvements around the property?
[Zac Bears]: It seems to me it might even be state-owned property. Essentially, I drive that road a lot. It's not a very safe area. I would expect that trucks are going to have some issues coming out of your location. And during your study of this location as a potential location, have you noticed or considered working with the state or the city around state-owned or city-owned property as well as your property?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. Next question is, you know, are you considering any other locations for this plant other than Medford?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, gotcha. And I do have a few more questions, but I think on the note that Councilor Knight was sending and my fellow councilors as well, you know, If we make a commitment to you, we'd want a shared commitment there. So I do think that should be part of a deliberative process to move forward. It sounded like you're privately held. You might not be able or willing to answer this question, but what is Monogram's net revenue annually?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And that's just kind of goes to my next question, which is Is $600,000 really going to be the difference for you? I would consider you, maybe we'll call you medium-sized, but $750 million sounds like a lot of money to me. Is this $600,000 really the difference maker for you in making this kind of long-term decision versus all of the other factors that you've mentioned, like the location and the building and the silos and all of the other conditions? Is it really the $600,000 that's the make or break?
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I understand. I'm just saying, you know, regardless 600,000 at the low end, 950 at the high end, we're talking about like 0.1% of the annual revenue for a 50 year investment. It just, you know, it's a small relative to this amount that you mentioned of $750 million a year and that you're a quickly growing company and that you sextupled the amount of revenue that was coming from your plant in Wilmington. You know, it's, it seems like in some sense in your account book, it might be, worth a little bit less to you than to us. Our revenue is not $750 million a year here in Medford. And thank you for answering my questions. I think maybe more directed towards Alicia Hunt or Dave Rodriguez, I do have some concerns that this sets a bad precedent, considering that we are a pretty high demand community. Our property values are growing. It seems that that's going to continue for the foreseeable future in the greater Boston area. Do you have any concerns that this sets a precedent for offering public subsidies and discounts in order to get new businesses in the future after this project?
[Zac Bears]: I mean, I understand the idea of jobs, And no disrespect, if it's been 11 months, I would guess that they've had to get another job at this point just to pay the rent. I understand bringing in jobs, but to Councilor Knight's point as well, it might cost more than $20 an hour to live in Medford. At least that's my personal experience.
[Zac Bears]: No, that wasn't what I was saying. I was saying I assume they've had to find some way to make money in the interim period. They're not just waiting for Monogram to move in here to take an old job back. So, you know, I guess it sounds like it's case by case. It's not setting a precedent. At least that's the position of the administration. And I understand all the other factors. I do think it is a of concern to set a precedent to say, if we want a business here, we're going to have to give them hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax breaks to do it. So that's a concern that I have, in addition to the other concerns that have been raised by fellow councilors. And I look forward to more deliberation on the matter. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: I would just add, just for the notes, for the record, for the future, that we look into using some of the proceeds if the TIF is approved, into tip accountability that's been one of the recommendations, policy recommendations around tips recently, making sure that they are being held up, that the agreements are being held to. So I'd just like to put that for the record, maybe for a future committee of the whole meeting to discuss further. And I understand it's not something we've done in the past. I'm more concerned about what we're going to do in the future. We do have a new administration. We're hiring economic development director. Is this going to be our economic development plan going forward to bring in this business because we have this high residential demand? So I understand we haven't done it in the past. I think that's probably a good thing, good stewardship, that we're not just giving these out willy-nilly. I know there are a lot of communities that do that and have found themselves in trouble. City of Chicago, 33% of their property tax revenue is wrapped up in TIFs right now. I know that's A little different from Medford, but I also know Malden, Salem, and other communities have used these tools pretty extensively. So just saying we need to keep a close eye on the future. I think the last thing we want to have is that if a business is coming here, they expect a TIF. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: One thing I'd just like to add to the records, uh, for the committee report, um, for the committee of the whole to be held. If that motion passes, which I expect that it will, um, is that we amend, the TIF or add language to the TIF agreement that Monogram Foods would not contest a card check or an LRB election if the workers chose to unionize at this facility.
[Zac Bears]: Just one last quick question. Are you currently leasing the facility right now or are you under agreement to lease the facility?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you to Councilor Morell, Councilor Marks for your work on this issue. It was particularly bad this weekend. I live in North Medford, but it wasn't the departures, it was the arrivals. So I would just propose an amendment that, I don't know about the I guess the FAA, but especially Massport, explore alternatives to using runway 15R for arrivals. It's a little bit different than the issue with departures, which as we know is complicated by these waypoints and all the other things that have been discussed for years. But there's been a huge spike in the number of arrivals coming in on runway 15R in 2020. It's the highest, I think, since 2014 or 2015, literally in the thousands. So permanent alternatives would be great. I also think alternatives during the pandemic, if maybe for the language for the amendment, if Massport can't find alternatives, permanent alternatives, consider alternatives for the duration of the pandemic. As we know, people are still spending a lot of time at home. I'm trying to work. It's a huge disruption. The noise to people trying to work, people trying to go to school online, et cetera. So if the amendment would be that Massport review alternatives for arrivals on runway 15R and also review pandemic related options for those arrivals.
[Zac Bears]: I was just, you know, there were 50 of us out there and they were still blowing through the intersection. So it was just amazing.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, just if Dave could, how long is as quickly as possible?
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you to our presenters as well. To me, I think This shows the success of the program. I think the first thing it shows is that most people just pay their electric bill. And in this sense, we are getting a significant benefit of renewable energy for, obviously, it's an average, but for an average of a pretty low cost of $4 over 10 months. Even with this added level of cost of $4, we're getting an environmental benefit that if you multiplied the kilowatt hours by the environmental cost of fossil fuels, I think we'd find that number to be very high compared to $4. I'm also impressed, if you looked at that chart, The initial national grid rate for the first four months of this period was almost as much as what residents would get under the 100% renewable rate that is offered by the city through the aggregation program. So I think that bodes well for the future and the future of renewable energy. My one question is, would it be possible, and obviously I know we're under contract till 2022, but looking at a future contract, would it be possible to add an additional renewable energy the 5% renewable to another number. A lot of communities have increased that to 10% as a base number in their second round. It is
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate that. And I think that's a good point here, too. We're offering more choices than we've offered before and offering options to residents to make those informed decisions. But I do want to just note from the data you presented, most people are going with the default. And that was true before when the rates were jumping around every few months. And that's true now with the more consistent aggregation. I think what we can do collectively, as this shows, is more powerful than what any of us can do individually. So I hope that we can continue to support this program and make it even more successful in the future. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you to my colleagues for bringing this forward. I think it's disappointing that we're having gamesmanship played right now around this issue. I really do. We all support this position. I don't think that's in question here. I think we all support most everything that's in the paper that was presented to us a couple weeks ago. I don't think that's the issue. We also all support having the elections coordinator and the position that we need to make sure that we have functional elections, and especially in this new environment with mail voting and early voting and all the other things that are happening with elections. It just takes more. We need it, and that's been made clear. In addition to what we're talking about with the 9-1-1 dispatcher, we also got a paper out of the blue that says that this could affect our taxation for the next year and affect our bottom line for the budget. I mean, the easiest way to address this is for a paper to come back next week that has the elections coordinator, has a 9-1-1 supervisor, and gets all of this approved and appropriated before December, this apparent deadline that we've heard from now from the administration, according to the finance director. It just doesn't make sense to me to sit on this. I think we're all in agreement on 98% of this. Some of it's a little give and take. I got some comments, I think, when I was elected and before I was elected that we're going to need to compromise and have unity and integrity. And we're not just going to be able to stick our feet in the ground and not get stuff done. This is an easy one for everyone. And it baffles me, Mr. President. It baffles me why we're not moving forward. on something that we basically agree on, and now we're hearing at the last hour, it's an emergency. It's going to affect our taxes for years. I wish I'd known that six months ago. I wish I'd known that a month ago. I wish I'd known that two weeks ago. Again, it just baffles me. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: And I would appreciate that update. I would, I personally would refer next week that we resolve this. I'm not, I'm not opposed to getting the update, but I think that, you know, next week we should have a paper on this agenda that would allow us to resolve this to the satisfaction of all parties involved. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: My point, I know that's something, you know, we have the paper currently tabled on this agenda. My understanding is we can't amend the proposal from the mayor. So the mayor would have to submit a new paper reflecting the agreements or at least hopeful agreements of all parties involved. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Just to add to the kind words of my colleagues, I want to congratulate Congresswoman Clark, who I believe is the only woman other than Nancy Pelosi to hold a position this high in the House of Representatives ever under any party, which I think is a profound accomplishment. And Congresswoman Clark is also a progressive champion, and she's putting forward a people's agenda that's going to lift up families and communities and help us recover from this pandemic. I think the HEROES Act and the which we've all been hoping would get through some piece of it for the past several months, is really an indication of where we need to go as a society in terms of really bringing money to cities and towns, to investing communities, to get back to, and not just back, but to get to somewhere better than we were before. And I appreciate the Tip O'Neill reference. In addition to bringing parties together, I hope we can bring some big federal money to Massachusetts and fix some of the big problems we have. So congratulations. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to thank Vice President Caraviello for putting this on the agenda. Obviously, it's disturbing that we had this case and that we found out in the news, and that it hits so close to home. I really do think we need better procedures for notification, and thank you, Councilor Morell, for that amendment. And I know that we do have some limits from the state, but I'd like to see us at least figure out what our policy is. So I'd also like to put an amendment to the paper. that we get a summary from the city administration on any current policies around notification to the community for level 3 sex offenders so that we can at least know what the city's plan is going forward if this is to happen in the future. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Morell, for putting this forward. I think the social justice roadmap is an interesting and helpful summary of the work that has been going on. And I think it puts us ahead of a lot of communities, which I think is a good thing, that we are really taking a citywide and city government wide look at the issues of racism and discrimination and civil rights and social justice. But I agree with Councilor Morell. I do think an understanding of how the roadmap will be updated For transparency sake, for follow through, for the public process that a lot of these items will require, it's going to be really helpful for everyone in the city. And also, you know, I think I make this point a lot, but between this item and some of the other things we've discussed tonight, I think it really shows how deeply under-resourced we are as a community. And I know I've been harping on this and will continue to do so. But we do not have enough to do the basics, never mind everything that we need to do. And I continue and will continue to push all of us to think about ways that we can increase the resources for our city government here in Medford. It's long overdue. I think we've been in crisis for a long time. I've felt that way ever since I was a kid living in this community. We are deeply under-resourced, and this is just one of the many, many examples of not having what we need to follow through on what the people of Medford deserve. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: I don't want to cut anyone off who wants to say something, but given what we just heard, I would suggest that we table this item. But I don't want to cut anyone off, so I'm not going to make that motion until everyone's had a chance to speak.
[Zac Bears]: I would move to table this indefinitely.
[Zac Bears]: While we're under suspension, take 20-476 off the table. Marijuana commission for third reading.
[Zac Bears]: Short term rentals.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for the presentation, Alicia. Similarly, Yes, we had a structural deficit and used free cash to address it, but there were significant cuts to the budget. And I'm just wondering what percentage of those cuts has been restored so far on the school side and on the city side.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Um, then on, if we were to approve the, uh, appropriations tonight, how much would that restore on the city side?
[Zac Bears]: That would be helpful. And I guess just, um, this might be for you or for, uh, chief of staff Rodriguez, but, um, How much of this appropriation would go to restoring positions that were cut versus creating new positions?
[Zac Bears]: So I guess that gets to kind of the heart of my question on the thoughtful approach, which is where where does this fit into your, to the plans for long-term plans that the administration has? And, you know, if we're prioritizing the positions listed here, does that mean that there are positions that were cut that we're no longer prioritizing or may not be prioritized going forward?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think I'm just, and I appreciate this presentation very much. So it's not nothing about this presentation, but I think what might be helpful if we're going to continue kind of going through this quarter by quarter process going forward is an understanding of how much these appropriations are restoring funds and programs and positions that were cut in the initial FY 21 budget, how much of them are going to new positions and kind of how much of that budget we expect to be able to restore going forward. So that's just something that would be helpful for me. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. For one, I agree with Councilor Marks on the elections coordinator position. I think it's essential. I just had one more question and I didn't want to, I was trying not to mix topics too much. In the presentation, Alicia, you mentioned that 2.5 to 2.9 million in CARES will be spent on HVAC PPE and additional personnel. Do we know what additional personnel would be covered under that?
[Zac Bears]: And on the HVAC, is that just school HVAC or city HVAC?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: I'll ask you a question too. Was there any consideration to using this money to address budget cuts that were made in fiscal 21?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Question for, I believe, Mr. Rodriguez. When could we expect another supplemental appropriation to come before the council? Do you have a timeline for that?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And I would just like to join with my colleagues and say that I think this supplemental appropriation should include the elections coordinator. And I would not be voting to appropriate additional funds until such appropriation includes the elections coordinator. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information. But I just want to make sure. Point of information.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to clarify. are you saying that no payment will be made at all regardless of the purpose?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: My question was National Grid is saying that no payment will be made regardless of the purpose, and I believe Ms. Cuddy's answer was yes, no payment would be made.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Tim, in your opinion, does the delay to the spring need to be included in some way in this petition?
[Zac Bears]: Great. And then just getting back to this question of coordination, have you been made aware of or do you have confidence that MWRA and National Grid We'll do the timing on the project in the spring so that the road is open for the, you know, is the road going to be open for months, or are the projects going to go one, two, and it'll be addressed relatively quickly?
[Zac Bears]: No, sorry, not at the same time. Is there going to be a gap between the two projects where Riverside Ave is cut up for six weeks before MWRA gets in after National Grid finishes their portion of the project?
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. That's just something I think, when this comes back to us, it would be important to have, National Grid to have from MWRA some commitment that they'll be able to come in quickly after National Grid does its portion of this work. Thank you. Yeah. We want the same thing.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: If I may, yeah. And also I believe I had one change as well in the representation section that wasn't made. And I've also found a typo in the attendance section. Just if we want people to send us back the right document, the last sentence of the section attendance, the word or after the word absences should actually be R-A-R-E.
[Zac Bears]: If you go into the section attendance, I think it's the third section. In the last sentence after the word absences, it should read are not or.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Is everybody on board with that? You can do that.
[Zac Bears]: We're saying 28th at 11?
[Zac Bears]: 21st at 11. Yeah, that works.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Due to the ongoing neglect of the state government, it's looking like public service cuts are coming down the line across the board. You know, not willing to tax the billionaires who made $17 billion since March. So instead, we're going to start cutting bus routes in Medford and start not funding our public services, our public schools, our public colleges. which is a shame, but there is a public meeting this Thursday by Zoom regarding service cuts and service changes that are being proposed. There is also now, I believe, a map which can be downloaded into a list on the MBTA website of various service cuts. The MBTA is proposing completely cutting two bus routes in Medford, the 326 Express and the 710 bus in the Fulton Heights. The small bus is completely cut and also reducing service on every single bus route in the city and the commuter rails on both the Wellington side and on the West Medford station, reducing service on the Orange Line. And who knows, probably reducing service before it's even started on the Green Line extension, which is just an absolute shame. So there is a public meeting. I encourage residents to attend this Thursday via Zoom to at least try to protest this issue. But it's just an absolute shame and just absolute neglect by our state government that would impose these massive public service budget cuts at a time when most of us are hurting so badly, people need public transit to get to work, and at a time when the, you know, 20 richest people in the state are doing twice as good as they've ever done. So I encourage residents to try to do something about this, to speak up about it, to attend this meeting on Thursday. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: And if I may, Councilor Knight just brings up an essential point. These are not things that can be easily replaced once they're gone. Once they're gone, they're not coming back quickly. It'll take months, if not years, if ever, to get them back. We know what happens when service gets cut on the MBTA. It never comes back, so thank you, Councilor Knight, and thank you to all my colleagues.
[Zac Bears]: I think it's just the highway, right?
[Zac Bears]: Just one more thing, and I just want to make this point. The T is making these cuts over $142 million loss. The 18 billionaires in the state have made $17 billion since March. So I just want to make that stark point clear. We're worth less than those billionaires. And that's what the MBTA and the government, the state government is saying. So I just want to make that clear.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. So it's sidewalk night down here, and we're trying to make sure that sidewalks are safe and clear for residents. I think everyone knows all the construction that's going on down by Tufts University. There are a lot of different projects, a lot of different agencies, and a lot of materials out there, sidewalks, Jersey barriers, et cetera. It's been a constant issue for area residents who are dealing with changes week to week, day to day, and seemingly without end. I spoke with Tim McGivern, who is going to work out any issues. He, apparently it is his job to work out these issues between the various contractors, which I appreciate. So he's going to do that on this specific case. And Tufts, I spoke with Rocco DiRico at Tufts, and he assures me that all of their materials are stored on Tufts property. Residents have sent me images of various materials that are clearly changing the sidewalk. And one of the big issues here, is that contractors keep moving barriers and other kind of, essentially, the Jersey barriers are moved six inches one day, six inches the next day. And suddenly, more of the street is blocked off, more of the sidewalk is blocked off. So it would be very helpful if we could get rid of some of this constant back and forth, where residents are seeing they'll complain and things will go back. And then a week later, things have moved back out again. So I'm hopeful that some of these immediate issues will be addressed, but it would be very helpful if folks in that area could work together and make sure there's a policy where sidewalks aren't being blocked for these various construction projects. because we do have issues with pedestrian access in the area. So thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: And if I may, definitely not the intent. And again, Tufts keeps assuring me that they already are storing everything on Tufts property. So maybe it is just GLX and some other projects, but Some of it doesn't seem like it to me, at least from the photos that I'm getting. So not the intent to use open fields for this, but just have them commit to their commitment to make sure that these sidewalks are accessible.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: What were the papers again? Councilor Knight. Sorry. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: It's like a quarter mile. Okay, so let me get past that then.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. My first question for National Grid, is this project going to remove the existing infrastructure from underground?
[Zac Bears]: Right, so the old stuff's coming out.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thanks. And then we don't have the city engineer, do we?
[Zac Bears]: In that case, I just have two questions we could send to the city engineer, if possible. What is the scope of the MWRA work, and are they going to require a grant of location, and why are only Riverside Avenue and Linden Street designated for resurfacing? Those are my two questions for the city engineer. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for hopping on, Tim. Just a couple of quick questions. So it sounds like MWRA is going to remove the existing gas main as part of their project. Is that what Ms. Cuddy just said?
[Zac Bears]: They have it.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Got it. And then I think Councilor Knight answered this for me, that some of the streets are not Eligible to be resurfaced due to the five-year rule, but it does look like this project's going into Locust Street Which was just resurfaced, so I'm just wondering why that's not included in your conditions I would probably be on the permit, I would think.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Yeah. And that's what it says in here is that Riverside will be fully resurfaced. And then there's a condition for Linden Street, but there's no condition for Locust Street.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Either to Ms. Cuddy or to Mr. McGivern, what is the urgency here on the MWRA's part to get this underway?
[Zac Bears]: Point of information. Point of information, Councilor Bears. Mr. Murphy, could you shut off your screen sharing, please? Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilor Bearst. Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Vice President. Dave, Mr. Murphy, I want to ask you some questions about the CARES Act funds. So I know there was a release that $1.6 million or so, maybe a little bit more than that, was spent on the schools out of the $5 million total that we've received here as a city. Has any additional money been spent on the schools beyond that $1.6 million?
[Zac Bears]: Well just before we do that, is that in addition to the 1.6 million that was in a press release or a patch article a couple months ago?
[Zac Bears]: In addition to, okay. And this may be for you or for Alicia and only Benjamin. How much of the 3.4 million, you know, that was not allocated to schools, how much of that has been spent or unspent? Because it's my understanding that the expenditure deadline for these CARES Act funds is this Friday. And I would hope that we are getting that money out the door to address these issues, so how much is remaining unspent?
[Zac Bears]: Well, I don't know if it's with the schools or not, but whatever the 3.4 million or less that remains other than what's been released to the public.
[Zac Bears]: Just an estimate, we got 5 million total. How much are we leaving money on the table if the deadline is this Friday and an estimate of how much we might be leaving on the table?
[Zac Bears]: Right. But if the deadline is Friday, that leaves $3 million that we haven't spent.
[Zac Bears]: Do you expect that you have $3 million in chart? That just seems unreasonable to me, that you would come up with $3 million in the next week. And that's not a task that should be put on you on such a short timeline. But are we losing that money?
[Zac Bears]: Well certainly the federal government has failed us, but I mean, again, I mean, I'm a little baffled. Is there any way that those numbers are going to end up adding up to $5 million, or do you expect that we will be leaving some amount of money on the table at the end of this process?
[Zac Bears]: I certainly appreciate that, Alicia. And what I'm about to say has nothing to do with you. I think you have an impossible task. But it seems like we gambled and we lost here. We thought we might be able to use this money to cover a deficit. We're not. And now we're leaving money on the table. And I think that's a huge mistake by the administration. And it's putting you and our city departments and our school system in an impossible position right now. I mean, that's a disaster, in my opinion. And it goes to another point, which I'd redirect back at Mr. Murphy. Consistency, clarity, and transparency are essential across all of these decisions, right? Whether it's HVAC or reopening or hybrid, we need consistent, clear, and transparent communication Was there ever a proposal or was the mayor ever amenable or the city administration ever amenable to using CARES Act funding or other supplemental funding to increase our communications capacity? Because my understanding is that we have people doing four jobs. No one's focused specifically on communication. We saw the perfect example of it tonight. We clicked something on the city website and it took us to a 404. Oops, where is it? Has there been any plan or proposal Or has it been rejected to increase the communications capacity of the school system to address some of these communications issues that have been rampant? I know that it's been significantly discussed at school committee. The school committee can only do so much. It really needs to be the staff, and it needs to be this administration, the city administration, accepting that. And so I just would like to hear if there's been any discussion or proposals for increased communication staff that has been accepted by the city administration using the emergency funding from the CARES Act.
[Zac Bears]: Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Has that question been asked of you about communications staff, Alicia?
[Zac Bears]: Well, right. I mean, I hear that. I'm saying in June, you know, we've had a summer and a fall where communication hasn't been what it needs to be. So I understand their specifics, but I would, it seems like the federal, I mean, are you calling the federal liaison and they're saying yes or no to every specific item or is that how this is working on your end?
[Zac Bears]: OK. Well, again, I think that's been a huge area in question. I know it's been raised by the school committee, by parents, by the community. I would hope that there can be some effort put into increasing the communications capacity of Medford Public Schools, as people have been talking about extensively, because it's needed. We can't have assistant superintendents and superintendents doing the job of communications and their own job and the job of assistants and secretaries. I mean, it is just not sustainable. And I think the people on this call know it best, because they're the ones who are experiencing it. So I mean, my last question was just going to be, You know, where do we go if the map turns red tomorrow, what happens? Do you have an answer for that, Mr. Murphy?
[Zac Bears]: Well, Mr. Murphy, I mean, I appreciate that, and I understand it. But yeah, you can wear four hats. You can't wear 40 hats. And I think there's a clear capacity issue here. a clear need has been outlined at very many school committee meetings for increased communication even prior to COVID-19. So I just want to put that.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Well, yeah. And I think it's also responsibility of the city administration and the people who make the budget to make that a priority. And yeah, I mean, I don't envy you having to work with Commissioner Riley, who's flip-flopping back and forth every other day on what DESI means or doesn't mean, or how big of a bully or a gangster they're going to be this week.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so I don't envy at all, but I will just say, I know that just going back into the red doesn't mean that. But if you look at the wastewater results and the number of tests per day, we are headed quickly back into a COVID surge. And I just think, again, the consistency, clarity, and transparency of your communication around that is going to be essential whatever happens. So I hope that resources are available. And I hope we're not leaving thousands or millions of dollars on the table to address those challenges. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, while we're under suspension, motion to take 2617.
[Zac Bears]: While we're under suspension, motion to take paper 20-617, 617. 20-617, communications from the mayor to the honorable presidents and members of city council.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to the CPC and Roberta Cameron for bringing these three proposals before us. I think they're all of incredible value. Just to Councilor Morell's point, and I think basically what we've heard here the past couple hours, federal government has failed us. The state government has failed us, especially on this issue of housing. And I'm really glad that as a local government, we've been able to, you know, do something to help people because people need a lot of help and things are bad out there. RAFT, which is the state's program, is really overburdened. The eviction and foreclosure moratorium expired a couple weeks ago. Judges are being rushed to the housing courts to process evictions. Housing is tenuous. We were in a housing crisis. We were in a housing crisis before. Now we have mass unemployment. And the federal and state government aren't doing their job, quite frankly. So I'm really glad that we can do this. I think we need to get this money out there. I'm hoping we can support more Medford residents and Medford families in keeping them in their homes. And I also just want to thank Mr. Durham from Veteran Services for the proposal to renovate and restore another one of our memorials. And to Therese Medford and Warden Tootin to look at all the trees in Oak Grove Cemetery. So I will be voting yes on this tonight. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I would also be supportive of the full amount, I think. What was the phrase? There's a dark winter ahead. I don't think we want to be in a position where we don't have the resources. I would be happy to maybe come to a compromise position that any surplus funds still with ABCD by the end of the next fiscal year be revert to the CPA. And then if there are additional funds, then we know they're coming back. I don't expect there to be, but that would be my proposal.
[Zac Bears]: Start off with that in the form of a motion.
[Zac Bears]: Would Councilor Marks be amenable to an amendment of $75,000? Instead of half, we do $75,000 and $50,000.
[Zac Bears]: Again, my concern is I think we should do all of it. I think this is the, we have the eviction moratorium expiring. We have winter coming. I think this is the time where we're going to see a surge in applications, which is what they've said over there. So I'd just like to err on the side of caution and give them a little bit more in case demand is incredibly high.
[Zac Bears]: I agree with that. I'm not saying that at all. This is the time where it's going to come through. We've just heard that, you know, they have applications. Basically, we've heard that there may be a cash flow question, right? I just want to try to avoid that. So that's just what I heard here is, you know, we kept processing payments were coming back, but we, you know, we didn't want to run up to the edge here is basically what I think was said. So that's just, I just want to err on the side of caution. That would be my proposal, amend to 75,000, and then we can come back for the additional 50. Either way, I know we're all approving the money, that's just my suggestion.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I mean, I just don't, it took weeks to get the grant agreement and all the signatures and everything processed last time. It's going to take them weeks to do it this time. And it's going to take them weeks to do it the next time when we have multiple offices, multiple eyes looking at it. I don't see a reason for a successful program, why we would appropriate less money to a successful program on the second round, add red tape and add administrative burden. I think this program's working well, I think we're just asking people to come back here, have another hour long conversation about it, ask them to do two weeks of extra work. It just doesn't make sense to me. So obviously, I support the program. I think at this moment in time, when we have so much on our plate as a council, when city staff has so much on their plate, Let's not add to it. I think we trust this. We've seen the results. We all agree that it's a good program that's successful. Let's appropriate the $125,000. It's being monitored by multiple offices. I just don't see a reason to do, again, we appropriated $125,000 on the first round. So we were clearly comfortable with it then. I think we should be comfortable with it now. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: And one quick, is this just a motion to change the amount or would this also approve the amount?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Can I make a motion to approve the next 625 right after that? That's what I'd like to do.
[Zac Bears]: Apparently, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, I'd like to move that we appropriate the additional $62,500. Second. On the motion of.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, hasn't that paper been dispensed?
[Zac Bears]: Haven't we dispensed with that paper? It has nothing to do with trees.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think this is really both smart and doable. So I support it and I second the motion.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. If I may, could I also amend it to get a report on the, for lack of a better word, the stump dump, where we put all the stump? Could we get an update as well on the stump deposit location, the dump for stumps? I don't know what it's called. The wood chips.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Well, we had a great meeting with Councilor Marks, Councilor, Vice President Caraviello, or should I say President-elect Caraviello and We discussed snow shoveling, the snow shoveling ordinance and proposed amendments. We had some members of our DPW in attendance, DPW staff, as well as a lot of citizens, folks from WAC Medford, Mass In Motion coordinator. And I think we've started on a good path to looking at amendments to the snow shoveling ordinance and hopefully making sure that our sidewalks are clear for All residents during the winter, senior citizens, people with disabilities, so that we can get around during the winter safely without a risk to people's health and safety. So we will have future meetings of the subcommittee looking at the issues of enforcement and fines and some of the other questions that we still have outstanding, priority sidewalk list, et cetera. So looking forward to it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Well, if I may, if you can figure out how they got in the room, I'd be happy if you let me know.
[Zac Bears]: No, I know. And I think city staff. They got keys.
[Zac Bears]: We're supposed to take up records.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, and next Tuesday is my birthday, so thank you. You missed it. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I would just ask my colleagues if we could table this until next week, just in case Councilor Morell would want to speak as to the timing of the caucus. So motion to table.
[Zac Bears]: No.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, councilor Scarpelli for putting this on. I completely agree. Um, I think we really need to know what this money has been spent on and how much is left. Um, and I think that's becoming even more important as the stimulus talks and the federal government are talking about being able to use this money for a broader range of purposes. I think it's important that we know how much is there and still remains. Um, in addition to what it's been spent on already. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think councilor Scarpelli basically answered my question. Um, but is this would be part of the conversations around the main and South redesign or are you trying to get something in there prior to that happening?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I was just wondering if a representative of the administration could tell us how much is in the TNC, the TNC surcharge municipal distribution receipts reserved account.
[Zac Bears]: And how?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Todd.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Todd. I have a couple of questions for you through the chair. It kind of goes off what Councilor Scarpelli just said, these bollards and sticks and posts. Are there any plans in some of these locations, at least thoughts about designs for a more permanent narrowing? Or is the idea just to kind of have these cones and then go to flex posts as a next step?
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Todd. And just another question. It's not actually directly on this TNC appropriation, but I've gotten calls from a couple of residents concerned about access to their driveways. They kind of live near some of these new cone projects, and they're having a difficult time getting in and out of their driveways. Did you talk to abutters who might be disrupted by the new cones that have been put up about that?
[Zac Bears]: I think that's the exact tone to approach this with, Todd. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to take papers in the hands of the clerk. Second.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Totally fine. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to thank Noah as well. And I think Noah's work on this, and I know also has worked with many other young Medford residents on this as well, really speaks to how involved so many young people are in our community and all the different facets of helping veterans, arts, culture, city government, and everything else. I just think we should be recognizing that and recognizing the great work of our public school system and our general community and raising a great crop of young people. So thank you, Noah.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, I found the records dutifully taken and presented.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to revert back to the regular.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Knight. The city and school budget are still, I would say, in crisis. We don't know yet what the impact of state and federal funding is going to be. It seems that there's a stalemate at the federal level, and it now seems like there's not clarity at the state level regarding the state budget. I know that there was a commitment to maintain Chapter 70 funding and unrestricted general government aid. But again, it seems like the state is unsure of where things are going to go. So I was hoping to get an update from the city administration on their view on the state budget talks and what they think the impact could be on city revenues.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to revert back to the regular order of business.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you to my colleagues for putting this resolution on the agenda. I'm happy to see the amendment, including Uber and Lyft. I think what we've seen is that these app-driven companies are looking at non-traditional, I guess might be the best word to use, methods of delivery. And, you know, I'm hopeful. I'm glad this is on. I hope we can come to a good agreement. But I am a little concerned. I just found out the other week that Amazon's guidelines actually set and requested all of the delivery companies that they use have their vans a certain size. And that size is about one inch smaller than would require federal regulation. So, you know, they're really leaning into some less than credible business practices in order to, you know, to be replaced with an Amazon distribution center. So I think this problem will only grow over
[Zac Bears]: It's not an amendment or anything. I would just add, it might be worth us taking a look at the summer schedule. I'm not sure if these long meetings have been impacted by the summer schedule of the council or not, but I obviously support the measure and getting the opinion. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Morell, for putting this on. And Councilor Marks for bringing it up previously. This plane noise thing has been an issue for a long time, but it's gotten a lot worse recently. And I just want to applaud everybody. I know there are a lot of people in Medford, in addition to Peter and Luke, who are really working on this. I want to applaud their efforts. I think another point where we can be hopeful is hopefully a new federal administration will help to move this along in a better way, and hopefully we'll be there soon. But I just really want to thank everyone for the work they're doing and also encourage people to continue sending complaints about airplane noise to Massport and the FAA. I think that's an essential piece of this. And if we can keep documenting and providing the data of the impacts, this is making making backyards unlivable, waking people up at 545 in the morning. I think we just need to keep pushing that. And I thank everyone who's been doing that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. The state's eviction and foreclosure moratorium for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, well, it was supposed to be for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it expires on Saturday, the 17th of October. Governor Baker has the authority to extend it, but is indicating that he will not. He's introduced a package of some assistance that could help people, but Essentially, unless a law is passed by the State House and State Senate, the eviction and foreclosure moratorium will abate. It will no longer be in effect. We have an eviction and foreclosure crisis coming very soon. If this moratorium is not extended, courts, in fact, the Massachusetts courts are hiring back retired judges just to handle the additional influx of cases that they're expecting. The Act to Guarantee Housing Stability is legislation with broad support in the House to fix this, and also to help not only tenants and homeowners, but also landlords, in addition to extending the moratorium. It also provides significant legal resources to all people involved in housing to help us get through this crisis. And I want to thank Senator Jalen, Representative Donato, Representative Garbally, and Representative Barber, who are all co-sponsors of this bill. And I think we should send a message as the city of Medford that we need to get this done It's great that our legislative delegation is on top of it But you know I think it's important to show that municipalities are very concerned about it that we're concerned about making sure that people have housing stability here in Medford and Hopefully, you know our nudge is combined with the nudges of a lot of other advocates and and local officials in in ensuring that we have real housing stability during this pandemic. And especially during this winter where, you know, in some parts of Boston, we're already seeing people set up tents in parks because they have been either kicked out of housing or didn't know their rights relative to the moratorium. So this is going to get serious. And I think it's important that we try to do our part to get some legislation passed at the state level to address it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I know that our city election staff, the clerk and folks in the registrar's office have been working incredibly hard to meet this moment of, you know, an election that nobody expected during a pandemic that nobody expected. There's obviously a huge influx of mail ballot requests, just like there was for the September primary. And I just want to commend, first commend the city election staff on their work on the mail ballots. I think that's really gone very well this time. And also commend all the folks who stepped up to join the team and work with the city election staff. early voting starts this next week as well. So that's another option that people have in addition to the mail ballots, and of course, election day voting on November 3rd. And I was hoping we could hear a little bit more from the clerk about what they've been doing around election preparation for the November 3rd general election. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to take, you know, it's before eight o'clock, so I'm figuring maybe we could do some cleanup. Could we take the last five items, which are committee reports, off the table and go through those?
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Happy birthday.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Mary Ann. I think you've had an incredibly difficult job over these past several months, keeping people alive, keeping people safe and healthy. And now, as it drags on, as the serious situation drags on, you have the job of trying to keep people in our community, keeping them safe from themselves, to an extent. We all want things to go back to normal. We all want things to be the way they were before, but we are where we are. So I just have a couple questions. You mentioned that we've been in the yellow for over a month, that our positivity You know, we have positive tests at some point in the Medford Public Schools. And, you know, we've seen over the past two weeks in Massachusetts, a 65% increase in COVID cases, positive cases over the past two weeks in Massachusetts. And the governor today was talking about a winter surge. So it's not the time to let our guard down at all. We have to be vigilant. We need to be careful. We shouldn't be pushing things faster than they should go, as recommended by our public health experts. I was just wondering, Marianne, given those statistics and given what the governor was talking about today, what are the plans or what are the thoughts around if cases continue to go up over the next couple months?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director. And I mean, I don't think anyone needs to hear it. I think we've all heard it ad nauseum over the past five days. But we have the best example of someone or some group not being vigilant when we have someone who's getting tested every day, catching this coronavirus and super spreading it. So we just need to be careful. If the President of the United States is vulnerable, I think we all are. One other question, you mentioned it a little bit in the positivity rate, Mary Ann, and I was reading about this too. The state's calculating the positivity rate based on the number of tests, but the old measure was actually on the number of people tested. Were you saying that the, you know, you said that because there's so many tests at Tufts that our positivity rate was like .36, but if we based it on the number of people being tested, what did you say that number was again?
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, while we're under suspension, motion to take 20-541.
[Zac Bears]: While we're under suspension, motion to take paper 20-541. 20-541.
[Zac Bears]: It's the one under communications from the mayor. It's the historic district.
[Zac Bears]: To waive the reading.
[Zac Bears]: I'd like to make a motion to sever the First Amendment 1 and the Second Amendment 2.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Are we voting on each one of these separately?
[Zac Bears]: I think the first amendment updates the language in the ordinance. The second amendment would add a historic district. Regardless of the vote on the specific historic district, I think it is worth updating the language in the ordinance. So that's why I would have them be two separate votes.
[Zac Bears]: I don't have a copy of that in front of me, but I'd be happy to take a look at it.
[Zac Bears]: Well, it's, I don't want to speak to the intent of the mayor and proposing this, but there's two separate amendments dealing with two separate issues. And I think we should vote on them separately.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. I'm looking at the ordinance now the 4851 a Amendment one would alter the structure To make it clear. I think to the reader what? 4851 a is saying so that's why I would stand by my motion to sever.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think it necessarily does that.
[Zac Bears]: No, I think we're going to change bounded respectively to bounded as respectively shown on the map entitled or the map. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Let's say the map reflecting the titles of the historic districts listed below.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, it seems like there's a slight discrepancy in the length. Basically, amendment one adjusts the paragraph formatting of section 4851 subsection A to better reflect the number of historic districts and show it in a clear list. It seems that the language bounded as respectively shown on the map is not translated over to this amendment. So I would instead amend the language to say, instead of bounded respectively, to say bounded as respectively shown on the maps for the districts listed below.
[Zac Bears]: I believe Councilor Knight is the one who had an issue with the language.
[Zac Bears]: I've withdrawn the motion.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Could we hear from Mr. Bader?
[Zac Bears]: Point of information.
[Zac Bears]: And so that was when this was first voted on the first time. That's what you're referring to as the 3, 0.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I mean, one other expert opinion we consulted was the building commissioner, Mr. Moki, and he did not mandate that the building be demolished. So I just think we need to consider the variety of opinions that we've heard. You know, I think it seems everyone's in agreement that a process needs to be developed or modified in the future around historic districts and demolition delay. That's not the paper before us tonight. It's not anything we do on that is not going to address what we've gotten up to this point on this specific issue. It seems to me that when we were at our Committee of the Whole meeting a couple weeks ago, that we felt okay about a kind of tentative compromise that was put in place that would lead to members of, well, at that point, I guess, members of our Historical Commission and members of our Historical District Commission Negotiating in faith with the property owner to come to a reasonable agreement around some element of preservation of this property or on this property that would allow the property owner to develop the type of structure that they want to develop while maintaining the some element of the historical significance of that property. That's what we're debating tonight. That's what we're discussing tonight. It seems to me that we have not yet reached the good faith compromise we wanted to. I think one of those reasons, again, is the timeline. The 17 meetings where this was on an agenda for the historical commission. That was not, you know.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, thank you. I mean, I would expect someone making a multi-hundred thousand dollar investment with the potential of a multi-million dollar profit would be paying attention to things like that.
[Zac Bears]: That's not what I said, so I think anyone in the city knows. how much this building was purchased for as it's public information. And anyone knows that if we're building multiple units for sale on that property, that it would also be worth millions of dollars. I think that's reflective of the market conditions. In any case, what we're voting on is the specific historic nature of this district. And I think we're all in agreement that there's a good faith compromise that needs to come out of this. The timeline has been shrunk, and people can point fingers wherever they want. The timeline is what it is. 10 days to produce a rendering clearly wasn't sufficient to produce a rendering that people feel comfortable with. I think we need to vote for this tonight and allow the discussions and compromise to continue. That's what needs to happen. Otherwise, here we are, October 6, demo delays in two days, building gets knocked down, and then where are we? Maybe we don't even get a plank and a bench. I hope we do. We don't have so many tools in our toolbox. This has been waited out for 18 months with one of the tools. The other tool of the historic district is what's left. I think we should make sure that we continue to have the power to make sure that this compromise happens. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Do we know that a letter was ever sent to the historic district commission about this issue, that they were notified that they should be embarking on this apparent journey to identify single district properties? Point of information, the chairman was present at the meeting. Point of information.
[Zac Bears]: Just a couple quick questions. Were you aware, Mr. Goldschneider, that this property was subject to review by the Historical Commission around demolition delay in July 2019?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and this effort to work on the local historic district that you brought up from July 2019, was that on public meeting minutes that the public had access to? I don't know. Well, I mean, the answer is yes. Were you checking the minutes of the commission because you knew that your property was under their review?
[Zac Bears]: First off, what you heard and what they said might be two different things, but you just said.
[Zac Bears]: You just said, Mr. Goldschneider, you just said that you knew it was subject to their review. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Just a few questions. Is this the end all be all? Is this proposed design that you've rendered and we've seen? Is that the final design?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no, I understand that. I'm saying, you know, you're saying it's not a final, that the rendering is not final. There could be changes or adjustments to it, potentially. Got it, okay. And I guess my next question would be, you know, if the single house historic district is not approved tonight, are you planning to, when would demolition commence?
[Zac Bears]: TBD. So I mean, I'm just saying, you know, we're all talking about the timeline here. clearly more discussions need to be had for all parties involved. So we have kind of a tentative, a non-legally binding agreement out there. Could part of fulfilling that be not demolishing it on Friday? I can't speak for Ari on that, but I just
[Zac Bears]: Well, it's a community process. But again, Ari, my question stands. I know Adam can't answer it. I'm wondering if you can. The question is, you know, there's a tentative agreement out there. It's not a legally binding agreement. Could part of that be we won't demolish it on Friday, or we'll give another 10 days for further discussion before we demolish the structure?
[Zac Bears]: Right. Just my question is, does TBD mean that the building, the structure may be demolished before the community development board meetings or the site plan review process?
[Zac Bears]: Well, it seems here that the stakeholders involved are concerned that if you knock down the building prior to having some sort of agreement on what the future is around preservation on the property, then there may not be an agreement at all.
[Zac Bears]: What's, you know, the leverage here is that, you know, you can't knock down your property until we come to an agreement. If that leverage disappears, then you could knock down the property and not come to an agreement, correct?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I was just wondering if we could, you know, there's a lot of gentleman's agreements going on. I feel like, you know, it doesn't really preclude anything or hasn't up to this point. I'm fine. Mr. President, I move approval on this paper.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, again, process, process, process. We're hearing about process. I agree we need to update and create a new process around the issue of historic preservation. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Question before us tonight is does 16 Foster Court deserve historic status? I believe the answer is yes. We can say it's about something else. We can say it's about the corner office. We can say it's about boards and commissions. That's not the question. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to revert to the regular order of business. Second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for reading that whole thing. Snow shoveling is a perennial issue. It's a seasonal issue. I'm going to try to avoid bad wordplay and puns from here on out. But it's a major accessibility issue in our community for people with disabilities and for folks who, I mean, we just heard from Councilor, Vice President Caraviello, you know, people who might be in a mobility assistance device. who already are having trouble getting around our city when there's not snow and ice everywhere, right? So, you know, we have a current ordinance around snow shoveling and maintenance of our sidewalks. I think it's been a discussion of this council in the past and of the previous city administrations that that ordinance should be updated. It's insufficient in certain places. One example is that it's the occupant or tenant of a property who will be responsible for removal of snow. City doesn't necessarily have a record. We have a very good record of who owns property in this community, not necessarily occupants and tenants. And I think Councilor Marks actually noted that several hours ago now in our committee of the whole on the donation bin ordinance, right? We know who's on the property. We might not know every person who's putting up a bin in the same way. at least at this point. There's definitely a few issues with the, you know, both of the existing ordinance that the existing ordinance doesn't address and that I'm hoping we can iron out in a future subcommittee meeting on the proposed ordinance. One is the issue of corners and the city plow ends where the city may, you know, put some snow on a sidewalk or on a corridor or a private plow operator may do the same thing. Looking at some sort of exemption or alternate plan for the elderly and people with disabilities who may be property owners but may also not be able to remove snow and ice on their own or may not have access to the resources to pay someone to do it. And someone emailed me after this was on the agenda that the plows, the faster the plows go, the more snow gets thrown back onto the sidewalk after they have been So there's even issues like that. And the question of sand and maybe replacing that word. So the goal is to have this discussion soon in the Public Works Subcommittee to discuss any issues, improve the existing ordinance. And I would move to refer this item to the Public Works Subcommittee.
[Zac Bears]: I would be happy to entertain that as an amendment for further discussion in subcommittee. And my button is now stuck, so I'm going to try my best.
[Zac Bears]: Happy to take them as amendments.
[Zac Bears]: That's fine with me. Mr. Mr. President, I just can't.
[Zac Bears]: I think the clerk can go first.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I won't belabor this. I want to say that I agree with basically everything Councilor Mark said and Councilor Scarpelli said. I took the last language that I could find that had gone to the Public Works Subcommittee previously and put it forward. I think You're absolutely right. When I read it, I didn't think it'd be $2,000, but obviously that's not a fine that would be acceptable. So I think a lot of the points that were brought up by me and Council Marks and Councilors Scarpelli will be discussed in the subcommittee and hopefully we can get to a good answer and make a program that works for everybody. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: No.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I mean, I think we need to move forward in getting something temporary set up. I don't think, you know, I'm glad that there's progress. I think that's an encouraging sign. I think we know that we're meeting about an initial design study, so that means there's more time coming before we get a permanent solution. And I would just also make sure that we CC Senator Jalen as well, because anything that, anything's going to have to go through both houses. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I've been talking to residents about this and I agree with my fellow Councilors. I think it's also not a safe intersection if you're driving. I think this is a win, win, win across the board. I'm not on my bike over there very often, but I am in my car and you can get hit. You could be hitting someone or you could, your car could be hit either way. It's a dangerous area that needs to be addressed. Just one thing for everyone to know that DCR has a study on the whole Mystic Valley Parkway, and technically that intersection is part of the Mystic Valley Parkway, which actually crosses the bridge there from the Arlington side back to the Medford side, and then goes up by the lakes towards the boat club. So there's a whole study in place, but it's just a study to look at what they wanna do. It doesn't have a short-term element that would actually address any of the things that we've been talking about, so I think it's really important that we try to work together. since there is DCR jurisdiction, hopefully they might provide some leeway for some short-term improvements in addition to the study that they have ongoing. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Vice President Caraviello. I've spoken to some residents who've been frustrated as well. The issue with Lexington is that prior to COVID, you could go even if you weren't a part of the consortium on certain days. Now with COVID, they've closed basically only if your city or town is part of that consortium can you go at all. So it's also kind of this COVID angle to it. I've spoken to the chief of staff and the DPW director about this. They've had some kind of alternative suggestions and said they'd get back to me on when Lexington allowed people, but I appreciate Vice President Caraviello bringing this forward because I haven't seen the action, the urgent action on this since the conversations I've had. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, I'm really glad that the Building Department and the Historical Commission have finally put together a system to streamline this. I think it's improved things and I agree with Vice President Caraviello when I've contacted the Historical Commission. They've been incredibly prompt with me. It'd be my preference that we strike the the words the historical commission from this. I think the building department is the entity responsible for notifying people about building permits. I think that's a question we have an answer to. The question is, why aren't those notifications going out? So that would just be my preference here, if that's fine with Vice President Caraviello as an amendment. Thank you. I've had some experience with this as well. I understand the frustration that property owners are feeling on this. and having to call and kind of get things moving as a Councilor. I don't think that's how, I don't think that should be our role, quite frankly. I think it should just be going smoothly. So I think it also goes back to some other points, which is that I think maybe our building department might need sufficient staffing to get this done as well. But for now, I just ask that we strike the words, the Historical Commission. Thank you. Thank you, Vice President Kirby.
[Zac Bears]: In the first line, the 10th word.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, I would just want to say, I think comparing this to the situation at 16 foster court is not an apt comparison and I don't think we should be doing that. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Please call the roll as amended.
[Zac Bears]: Again, I think that just goes to the heart of the issue, right, which is the Historical Commission is doing its work promptly, and it's sitting at the building department. Are they all? Yes. Yes, they are. Are they all? They are. 17 months? Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, again, could have showed up to any meeting, but that's another issue. It's yeah, the Historical Commission's doing them promptly. It's going to the building department and the notification's not being sent out. I fully agree with the proposal to have the notification sent out within 72 hours because that's what should be happening. So the issue here, permitting authorities, the building department, permitting authorities not providing prompt notification, we should ask them to provide prompt notification. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. From what we've seen, all evidence, all matters are being addressed promptly and sent to the building department. If we want to propose some sort of request for a policy change, I'm not opposed to that. I'm just saying right now, we know where the breakdown is.
[Zac Bears]: I agree with that. I call the building department. That's where the problem is.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Bears. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I won't speak long. I think Councilor Marks did a wonderful job, but it was really sad to see so many people across our community coming to terms with this news, especially our arts community. And my thoughts are with everyone who's hurting right now. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: It was Councilor Morell.
[Zac Bears]: I thought Councilor Bears had the second, but we said it at the same time.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm fine with that, as long as it's within the control of the business, as long as the property owner isn't the one who controls the light switch. We're just having a little bit of feedback. I think there were too many mics turned on, so that's directed to you, Mr. President. I think we're fine now. It looks like they're off. Yeah, we're fine. Great, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilor Marks and the petitioner answered my question, so I'm all set. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to take 2562 off the table.
[Zac Bears]: I think it's the south elevation. I mean, I think it's the one that was approved by Wright faces the building that Margarita's used to be in.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Through you to the petitioner, will these illuminated signs be shut off at 10 p.m.?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Is it 544?
[Zac Bears]: I think it's on the other side of the intersection. I might be wrong, too.
[Zac Bears]: You're good to go. Great. Do we have the city engineer?
[Zac Bears]: OK. I guess then just to the petitioners, when will this construction start? Is this next spring? Is it this fall?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Thank you. And I mean, my question for the engineer would be why, why are there 18 now conditions, but he's not here. So that's okay.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve.
[Zac Bears]: As amended.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, while we're under suspension, can we move to take communications from the mayor?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I didn't have my hand up yet, but I was going to put it up. We've had a lot of discussion about this. We went on a site visit yesterday. I think the discussion in our committee of the whole Allen site showed us that we are really close here. I think that the property owner and the members of the historic commission, the historic district commission are close, and I think we should encourage that compromise. But I also think that what's before us tonight is the question of whether 16 Foster Court and the 200-year-old structure on the lot warrants a historic district designation, and I think from the evidence we've been shown, it absolutely does. I'm heartened by the efforts of the property owner to reach compromise, and now, you know, I'm concerned that if we don't approve the district that the compromise won't be reached and one of the last pieces of the shipbuilding history of our city, which as we know is an important part of our city's history, will be demolished on October 9th. Now that the community process is underway, and now that it's clear that the developer and the Historical Commission and the Historic District Commission are near to a good faith compromise, I think we should approve the district, ensuring that the community process can continue without the threat of demolition hanging over the discussions and the goal of compromise. I think 16 Foster Court clearly deserves the historic designation, regardless of the compromise. I'm hopeful that it will keep the facade of the building and that we can really celebrate the shipbuilding history of the city of Medford. But that designation certainly would not preclude moving forward with development, and I think all parties involved are ready to have that discussion. So I think we should advance this, but I welcome hearing from my other Councilors. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Are you not making a motion? Nope.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you for your presentation. So I guess it seems like if there's a compromise, you wouldn't want the district to be in place. And I understand that. I was just wondering, would the bench and the plaque that was mentioned earlier be a part of this as well? I really like the idea of taking the timbers that can't be obviously saved and used in the structure and building a bench out of them.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Ari.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I want to echo Councilor Marks and my colleagues' comments. And I also want to say that I think this shows the efficacy of the demo delay and the potential historic district as a tool to ensure that we can have a negotiation and reach a compromise. I think in many cases in this community with developers, we don't really have much community leverage, and in this case we do. And I think it's allowed us to meet all of the different pieces of this, right? It's allowed us to really make sure that development can happen, that housing units can be built, which I think we all agree that, you know, in an apartment district, it makes sense to have, on a lot of that size, it makes sense to have units, while also maintaining historical preservation. So I just want to say I think it actually shows that, you know, if we didn't have demo delay and we didn't have this historic district proposal, we would just, have another building of apartments and not something that preserves and kind of highlights the history of shipbuilding in our city. So thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information.
[Zac Bears]: Would the second reading be able to be published on October 7th? What is the print deadline for the Medford transcript? Why does it have to be in the transcript? The Globe runs every day.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: I just got a message from Ryan Hayward that they have approved the cost to run it in the Herald or Globe if needed. So I'm comfortable tabling until the 6th.
[Zac Bears]: I second Councilor Knight's motion to table.
[Zac Bears]: No. I'd move to take all communications from the mayor out of order.
[Zac Bears]: No, I meant all of them, but it's fine.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm incredibly glad to see this item before the council. I think charter reviews are long overdue in our community. I think this charter was last reviewed before I was born. And empowering this council and ensuring greater representation and diversity on the council are one of the many ways I hope, one of the many changes I hope the Charter Commission would explore. I do have a question. I'm not sure if a representative of the city administration will be able to answer it or who we have. We have Jackie Peeks. I'm not sure if Jackie has this information off the top of her head. And maybe my colleagues, I'm especially thinking Councilor Knight might have the answer. If this were approved tonight, would it be disposed of by the legislature at the end of this session in December? And would a new home rule petition have to be sent after the new general court session begins in January?
[Zac Bears]: I think Councilor Knight might have said yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I would be happy to ask the solicitor. I'll ask on my own, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, motion to approve.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I hear what people are saying. I just think this is the part where it's not, we're not, the city of Benford is not focused on it. This is, we're asking the permission from the state. We've known how long it can take on a variety of home rule petitions that this council has sent in the past that have never been heard. I think we are advantaged by sending it sooner rather than later, trying to get the legislature to move on it. Because I think if we send it, I'll vote for it now, I'll vote for it in January, I'll vote for it whenever it's on the agenda. But if we send it in January, it could be the next January before they act on it, or they may never act on it at all. So I just think if we're talking about time, this is the part of the process where it's not, in the city of Medford. It's in the general court asking for the home rule petition. So I just think getting it up there sooner rather than later to try to move it along, it doesn't mean that this council can't focus on the many other issues that we have at hand. So that's just where I'm at. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Well, Mr. President, if I may.
[Zac Bears]: And I think that that's kind of the point I'm trying to make, is let's send it up. If they approve it, they approve it. If we send it up now in this session, and if not, we're back in January, and then they can approve it in the new session. I just think we know exactly how difficult it is for the municipalities, whether it's Medford or most other municipalities, to get a home rule petition passed through the legislature. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: And if I may, we received a communication from- Mr. President, if I may just quickly say that I had prior, in the past I had refused myself from brewery business. I mentioned this at a committee of the whole, but I think I should mention it in full council. That I consulted with the ethics commission and both myself and my family members divested ourselves from the Medford Brewing Company, allowing me to participate in discussions regarding this paper. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Just the seven barrels is actually the size of the brewing system, not the amount of beer produced. So I think, I don't know who the enforcement authority would be. I think that we could appoint multiple people who would otherwise be approving a license to review to make sure that it is a seven barrel system or not.
[Zac Bears]: Uncle Adam does, too. You can count me as an Uncle Zach.
[Zac Bears]: Second the motion.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Mr. President. Oh, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: I want to echo the thanks of my colleagues. And if Councilor Knight is amenable, could we also amend this motion to also be a motion to table? So we only have to take one roll call vote. All good?
[Zac Bears]: Whichever date you prefer.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: I was just referring to the CAC.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, sorry. I was saying that if we could make a motion to amend amendment to Councilor Knight's motion so that we table it to a date certain so we only have to take one roll call vote. And that's just for the CAC, not for the zoning.
[Zac Bears]: As an amendment to Councilor Knight's motion to request.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. And if required, I'd happy to make further amendment to waive the reading. I don't know if that's required or not. You didn't read the 10 page.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, the CAC. The CAC.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: As amended.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Did we already do in favor and opposed? Did we already do the in favor?
[Zac Bears]: May our ancestors of the temperance movement forgive us.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I strongly support the resolution and hope we can move forward quickly. And I would just ask, it's not a motion or an amendment, just ask that none of these meetings supersede any committee of the whole meetings on the same proposed ordinances.
[Zac Bears]: Second and move approval.
[Zac Bears]: a point of information, point of information, point of information.
[Zac Bears]: Just a clarification. Would that amendment be instead of conducting a new audit, Strike and replace, got it, thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I wouldn't mind. I don't see any harm in just asking for both up front. I'd like both if people are open to that. I just don't see any difference. If it's a lot, I'd like more time to read it.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, an amendment to receive both the independent audit and the monthly city audits.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I send my condolences to the Goloni family as well. If my council colleagues would be open to it, I'd like to propose a B paper to also send our deep and sincere condolences to the family of Catherine Gorman Rodriguez, who is the mother of our city's chief of staff, Dave Rodriguez, sister of former school committee member Aaron DeBenedetto. And I would move that as a B paper. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: 2-0-- I move to withdraw, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I do think that if the school committee passed a resolution asking us for a report on something, we might have an issue with that. So I just want to put that out there. But in terms of the framing on the actual issue, I definitely think that equity in access to attending remote learning is a concern. And it's just the framing, the framing of it. Address truancy, hire truancy often, sir. I mean, I don't know if that really addresses the scope of how we address the problem of equity and access here. Because I think some of it, sure, some of it could be a family problem. Some of it could be technological. Some of it could be logistical. So I understand the concern, and I hear the concern. The framing just doesn't feel right to me. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't want to beat a dead horse. I think Councilor Marks and Councilor Caraviello made a lot of good points. If it was not 11 p.m., I might be a little more angry because I think we literally saw the city clerk physically change and feel the stress of working hundreds of hours in a very short amount of time to make an election work that we've never seen before. And to be honest, the city clerk has been asking for this for years. For years he's been asking for this to be in the budget from the mayor's office, and this man, the previous mayor, it just hasn't gotten in. They haven't put it in. So it's not like we didn't see this coming down the road. Early voting, 10 days of early voting, is enshrined in law. from now until forever for primary and the general election, so that's there. Now we're gonna have mail ballots, maybe for a long time, maybe that'll be enshrined into law too. There's a ballot question, we might have ranked choice voting, which might also add to the elections plate. And just to make the point, this city clerk has put on four, by November, he will have put on four major elections in 12 months. The municipal election, the presidential primary, the state and federal primary, and the general election. Four elections in 12 months without an elections coordinator. So I'm a little angry that this hasn't been addressed. I'm a little angry that the clerk was kind of hung out to dry when he's been asking for this to be addressed for years and it hasn't been done. So let's do it. I don't know what else to say. It needs to be done. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: just as if I may, and not to step on your toes, I know for a fact that the clerk has made these asks directly. It's not about meeting and asking what they need. The needs have been outlined, the asks have been made, and they are not being answered. So it's just very frustrating.
[Zac Bears]: What's the motion? The letter to the secretary?
[Zac Bears]: We're already voting yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. If Councilor Marks wouldn't mind an amendment as well, just to add the diversity director to that committee of the whole.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think I saw on Councilor Morell posted today that the city is around 71.2% or 71.8% response rate. That's 28% short of where we need to be in terms of having a full count in this 2020 census. We are eight days away from the end of the census now that the Trump administration has shortened the time that the census will occur. I mean, to be completely honest, talking to census experts, there's a deep concern that this entire census process will be flawed, but given that it's entirely possible that it will be certified and be the official result, the goal of this is to ask the city administration, say we were at 72 or 75 or 80%, and I'm leaving that up to them, what would the impact of that low response rate be in terms of any federal funding, state funding, and other ways that we are bound by the census in the different funding streams that we have for the city of Medford. So that's the intent here, and I would move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. So Rivers Edge Drive over in the eastern most part of the city, some of it is in pretty good condition, some of it is in less than ideal condition. And really this is just an intent to get an update. I have been informed that our neighbors in Malden do have, I believe, some funding to redo what they're calling commercial street, which then turns into River's Edge Drive here in Medford. So I just want an update to see if there's anything in the works to repave or repaint or in any way improve the condition of River's Edge Drive.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I would just add two quick things, which is, number one, that the pandemic and the mental health effects associated with the pandemic and the pandemic restrictions are making this problem worse, and that I think that this is incredibly apt during Recovery Awareness Month that we do this. So I have friends who deal with substance use disorder. I have some friends who've had a very hard time through COVID-19 and who would appreciate a meeting nearby that they could get to. So thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to get the President a computer charger.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to take 20-540 off the table. Second the motion, move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Take paper 20-540 off the table.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Dr. Vincent. I know you're working with a smaller staff than you were working with last year, I think including the data director, so I know it must be difficult. I spent four years in Medford High School this side of the year 2000, and I can tell you if it was bad before, it's worse now. So I really appreciate the condition that the building is in and the work that needs to happen. I have two quick questions, hopefully. The first one is, has any spending on HVAC repairs or other repairs to, or upgrades to make sure the building, Medford High School, is safe? Have those happened already? Has any spending occurred?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, John. Yeah, I appreciate the answer, and I understand the concern of vendors coming into the building. My only other question, well, also I like Dr. Vinson saying that there are special parts of the building. I thought that was kind, kind language. My other question is just the timeline. Do you think that these repairs will be completed by the current estimated date where students might be coming back into the building, which I think is mid-October, or would they go past that?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Dr. Vincent, and I appreciate the due diligence and the documentation sent over today and look forward to further documentation. I would move approval of both papers.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just think the same logic could be applied to having council meetings and other board and committee meetings at City Hall and City Hall staff. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: And I second.
[Zac Bears]: Can we amend this to also allow these funds to be used for other schools, as we did for the last paper?
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, while we're under suspension.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I've had my hand up since we started, so just FYI. Yeah, I mean, a few things here. So one, I don't disagree that bringing in revenue is important. I think it's a little dangerous to be making land use and development decisions primarily on how they affect city revenue, although I do agree it's an important decision. I think more importantly, though, is the larger question of process. Last week, I helped a family work through the we've had this thing where now the building department is correctly going through and making sure that the Historical Commission has at least seen permits when they go out and they've built a new online system to do just that. I helped a family last week who was having an issue with the delay and quite frankly the delay isn't from the Historical Commission. The issue has been in the building department. A permit was issued and then the building department said, hold on a minute, we need to check. And then five days later, I made a couple calls, the building department sent it over to the historical commission, and that day, the historical commission brought it back. So these permits are sitting for days in the building department. The historical commission, when they get them, is turning them out the same day, if possible, and most of the time. So, you know, I just think we need to allow or encourage the building department to accelerate the work, make sure they have the resources they need, as is well taken the amount of permits that are happening, make sure they have the resources to process them and get them over. I don't think the blockage here is the historical commission. And quite frankly, if you've driven down West Street, you can see the travesty that's happened on West Street, where a historical home has been turned into a monstrosity, and there's no new units. It's still a single family home. It's just giant and takes up the lot now. So, you know, it's due diligence. I don't think the historical commission is the problem here. So if we can accelerate this process in the building department, get everything over, I think we'll be just fine. And maybe we can avoid some of this stuff like what's happening over on West Street. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I don't think the issue here is the length of the demo delay. There's hundreds, if not thousands, of permits issued in this city. There's 50 over 10 years that have been subject to demo delay, and four have not been demoed, which, in my opinion, is a net benefit to the city. But again, I think the issue is making sure the building department has the resources to make sure this process moves well. I think people are doing good work. the assertion that the historical commission's functioning as a design review board is really reflective of the work they're doing. They're taking a quick look. And 99% of the time, everything is moving through the process. And I think, you know, if we can get resources to the building department to make sure that process moves quickly, that's something we should do. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, colleagues, for putting it on. I completely agree that we need to look at trends and patterns and really be able to analyze and make the best decisions possible. So I'd just, you know, I'd like to amend the paper for getting reports and data back to the year 2000, if possible. I understand that might take more time, so I'm not going to put a time limit on it, but I would love to be able to see the long-term trends. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: That's fine with me. I'm putting a timeline on it. It seems like there's data going back a few years. That could be really helpful, and maybe longer if it's there.
[Zac Bears]: if possible.
[Zac Bears]: Second, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think actually Councilor Scarpelli made most of the points. Again, it's just an example of poor communication or directly false communication made to people in the city around this issue. So I completely agree. And I did not know that they were also sending their communications to our state delegation as well. So it sounds like we have some issues to address here.
[Zac Bears]: Second the amendment.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. You just used the phrase temporarily suspended, and it reminded me, I'm pretty sure the E branch of the Green Line past Heath Street has been temporarily suspended since 1998. And the clerk could correct me, but the A branch maybe has been temporarily suspended since 1969, so. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Me, too.
[Zac Bears]: Yep, move to join.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I agree with Vice President Caraviello wholeheartedly. I think it's necessary that we get the resources down. I'm almost able to talk, but he's washing his window. I really think it's important that we get resources to City Hall, including a permanent elections coordinator, which has clearly been requested over and over again. Additionally, I think there are some things we could do to make sure that residents are more informed and have the information in a more prompt way, as well as providing these ballot drop boxes in a couple other locations other than City Hall. I have spoken to the clerk extensively about this and I just want to relay, you know, I think the clerk did a very difficult job in very difficult circumstances in a way that produced a result that we can count on. So I want to make that clear, but that doesn't mean that we can't do more. And that doesn't mean that the clerk doesn't need more to do things right. We know the turnout's going to be significantly higher. On November 3rd, I think Councilor Scarpelli is also raising his hand.
[Zac Bears]: But, you know, again, there's a lot that we can do to help. I have spoken with the clerk. I've also spoken with Chief of Staff Dave Rodriguez, and I'm confident that efforts are going to be made to accomplish the election in a better way in November. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. So as we're aware, the Green Line Extension Project is well underway, nearing completion, hopefully next year if all targets are met. The stations in Medford, the Ball Square station is actually mostly in Medford, and of course the Hillside or the Tufts station, I believe Medford Tufts is what it's called, you know, they are walkable stations. There is not parking designated for those stations. So they are designed to be walked to and use other modes of transportation like buses and bikes. The intent of this resolution is after speaking to some folks in the area and also some developments with development in the area, really taking a hard look at making a district plan for the region along Boston Ave near Ball Square. Obviously, Somerville has just gone through a major rezoning that's going to significantly affect traffic into Medford. So the proposal here is that we would meet in Committee of the Whole. to discuss a district plan that would include transportation improvements, zoning, all the things that would need to go into really updating what we do in that area. One part of the Green Line extension is that around these walkable stations, the MBTA is really supposed to work with the local authorities, with the municipality. to make significant improvements around the stations. I think we want to do that as part of a coherent plan, addressing concerns of neighbors, as well as addressing, you know, kind of some of the new opportunities we might have around growth, around development, around improving the area. So again, that's the intent here, meeting committee of the whole with representatives who have a stake in this, and I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. Thank you, Laurel, and I'd be happy to amend the paper to add the, you know, Medford-Tufts station and to look at all the way down to Boston Ave to the Medford-Tufts station.
[Zac Bears]: Can we invite Tufts University to the meeting as well?
[Zac Bears]: Given the circumstances, yeah, that makes sense.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I think this issue has come up a lot from a lot of folks, including myself. And it goes back to something that was said earlier around having options. We have options around these meetings. I think we've added another option, which is not without its flaws in this meeting hybrid that we're having right now, which has its own issues as well as Zoom. But I think the views of What public health says, we have not chosen the safest option. We have not chosen the option to meet virtually, not meet in person, which would be the safest option. So I'd like to have some public health metrics and guidance around this beyond just let's meet in the chamber. We can't have the public here. We can't have any of our guests here. Let me tell you, sitting over here between four different barriers trying to look at this TV screen and see what people are saying is, you know, not the easiest thing in the world when my glasses are fogged up because I'm wearing my mask. So there's benefits and costs to all of the models that we've looked at so far with Zoom and the hybrid model. I think given that fact that neither is perfect, we should be taking the safest choice. So that's what my resolution is intended to do. And quite frankly, I've received several messages tonight asking why some Councilors are wearing masks and others aren't. So I would also propose a B paper that the Council President mandate masks behind the rail while we're meeting.
[Zac Bears]: I am positive that I do not want to be COVID positive. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Those are not the same things. We've been sitting and, yeah, it is. I mean, we can talk about it or not, but you can't compare two entirely different things and say they're the same thing and then call someone a hypocrite. It's just not true, Councilor Scarpelli. And if we want to talk about how this virus spreads, it's a lot of people sitting in this, do you think this glass is protecting anyone in a long term when airborne particles and droplets are spreading? I mean, it's just not based in the science around how this spreads. And quite frankly, I'm the youngest one here. I'm wearing a mask. If you wear a mask, it's to protect other people. I'm at the least risk here. So I'm just saying, I don't think we want to be in a situation where there are Councilors who are sick and God forbid there's four Councilors who are sick. And I understand that, you know, Other people may feel differently. I don't think this is a time for feelings. I think this is a time for science and public health.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I believe when you walk in the building, it says you have to keep your mask on. So again, you know, if we're talking about following all rules and regulations, that's fine. That's not what this resolution says. It says, I'd like to check on that. It says that we should have not, not that the process that has gone through approval now, is at issue here, Councilor Marks, through the Chair, it's that if things change, do we need to make a different decision and how are we having the information to make that choice? That's what it's saying. I'll be completely honest. The reason I proposed a B paper is because I've been wearing my mask this whole time and showing you the courtesy of doing that and I would like that to be returned to me. And if it's not, then I will attend in a way that makes me feel safe. You know, if my Councilors don't want to do that, or they don't feel that wearing a mask is necessary, that's fine with them. I'm going to make a decision to make myself feel safe. I think that to Councilor Knight's point, to the integrity of the body, do we want President Falco trying to call on me on Zoom and call on you in here? It's already hard enough with the two of us in these back seats without a signal. So I ask for that reason, that everyone wear a mask, and I'll feel okay being in here. But to say that it's not everywhere we go, I don't go to restaurants. Well, then maybe we should meet on Zoom. Then maybe we should meet on Zoom. I don't know what to say, Council Marks. I can understand it. I think the public can understand it. Thank you, Mr. President. And again, I would ask that my colleagues respect the courtesy and the rules of the building and wear their masks. And if they don't, then we'll have to make the choices we make. And I guarantee you, it won't be as an effectively run meeting if some of the council are here and some of the council is not. So that's why I proposed the B paper. And quite frankly, I'm disappointed.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information.
[Zac Bears]: for the duration of the COVID-19 state of emergency.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, as issued by Governor Baker.
[Zac Bears]: The COVID-19 state of emergency as issued by Governor Baker. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, the paper's out of order.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, point of information.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, it could be a weekly communication from the mayor that ends up on the agenda, something like that. I'm interested to hear what the administration has to say.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that was the same thing. So if it's happening next week, I'm fine with that.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to my fellow Councilors for many of you for bringing this issue up. I just have a couple of questions, Dave. In terms of the fee structure, how did you arrive at the amounts that you arrived at? And is there an estimate of how much this might raise over a year?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Yeah. And then just kind of on that general scope, um, you know, how much might this raise in a year? What is the general cost of some of the road and abatement measures that you want to implement and that we all want to see implemented? And like, would these fees provide enough revenue to accomplish the goal?
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Dave. Super helpful.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And it's really up to Councilor Knight. I was wondering if we could amend this to also make sure that as Susan and as folks have said that we make sure that this is looking at access for people with disabilities. If we're going down there for beautification, we might as well make sure there's the necessary clearance for people who need access.
[Zac Bears]: No, and I appreciate the principle. I think it's really important that we do it. And it's just, if we're going down there to look at the beautification, it's another opportunity to check those distances. So I appreciate that, Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Knight. I'm right there with you. I think that was an incredible explanation and I think this is something we should do for our community. So I'm supportive of this and supportive of deliberating on it. I was wondering if we could add a B paper just to get an update from the solicitor's office on the status of some ordinance we've requested and also whether or not KP Law is helping out with ordinance drafting.
[Zac Bears]: I would support that. Thank you, Councilor.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'd still like an answer on the KP law, but if it comes before or during that meeting, that's fine.
[Zac Bears]: That works. That's fine, yep.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to say that I'm glad to see the school portion of my motion is on here. Glad that Director Denley Benjamin is here to answer questions. And that leaves the only unresolved question as to what's gonna happen with the local aid funding. So that's now my main question with this motion. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Just Alicia or Dave, What's the plan for the local aid piece of this?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, motion to suspend the rules to take communications from the mayor, out of order. Second.
[Zac Bears]: Just moving to take the other communications from the mayor out of order.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I know we do have Charlene Douglas from the MTA here, whom I don't know if there's anything additionally that Charlene might want to add to this conversation. And secondly, I'll reserve until after if Ms. Douglas has anything to say.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Bears. Thank you, Ms. President. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Douglas. I mean, just to me, you know, we know that the the high school is significantly older than the other schools. And it does seem to me that whether it's teachers or administrators or parents and students, that there is real need to address these HVAC issues. I've read some of the similar studies as you miss Douglas. So it's just my position that they should get this money down there as quickly as possible so that we can get projects in motion as quickly as possible. And if we're saying, come back to us and it's a couple of weeks. And I think that puts us in a position where we're actually, stringing people along on these big decisions. So it'd be my suggestion, and how I will be voting, is that we move this money down and get it going.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll just say our next meeting is in two weeks. When is the next school committee meeting after that? I think we understand the conditions of the high school and we understand the costs of HVAC. And if we're here in three or four weeks, and the reason that projects aren't bid out or that projects aren't underway is because we chose not to send the money down tonight. I don't want the city council to be blamed for that. I think we understand exactly how tense this reopening question is. I think we should be putting all resources possible into getting that reopening done. 900,000, hopefully 900,000 is enough. But I really don't think-
[Zac Bears]: Point of information, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: beers. I hope where we are isn't that people aren't in the school buildings because we made this choice. So that's my position. It's going to cost millions of dollars. The money is needed. I don't I'm voting no to table because I'm not going to be responsible for delaying schools reopening. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: My understanding is that a decision has been made by the mayor's office and this is requesting a copy of that decision. So it's not the same motion as last month. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: That is why I put this on the agenda.
[Zac Bears]: It'll be on next meeting.
[Zac Bears]: He may be separately muted on his phone.
[Zac Bears]: I guess the suggestion would be to have a committee of the whole with Chief Buckley, Mr. McGilvery, and the administration once they have their, have vetted the documentation.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, move approval on the paper as amended.
[Zac Bears]: I'll happily second as well.
[Zac Bears]: No. Thank you, Mr. President. Did I say that? I'll put it on for you next time.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to echo what Councilor Knight said and thank Vice President Caraviello. I'm personally going to be purchasing one of the the pavers And I really encourage people to check out the foundation website as as president vice president carabiello mentioned There's a lot of great opportunities And I even know that the committee's making some affordable naming opportunities and like the 50 for certain things Which I think is a really really great way for folks Um to get to get get a piece of get their name on it be a piece of this. Um It's such a huge process success and such a huge project for our community. So thank you, Mr. Vice President, and really encourage people to check out the foundation website for how you can help contribute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I definitely appreciate what Councilor Mark said. And I think this motion by Councilor Morell really has that focus on what we as a city council can do, what we, you know, what ordinances or policies or procedures that we have authority over. But I agree, you know, we're a piece of a puzzle and the other commissions and the mayor's office. So I think it's important for us to figure out what we can do as well as having that coordination and those larger conversations. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I know we've talked about the census here a few times now, but There have been some changes. The Trump administration has changed the rules on us, and instead of having till the end of October to count folks, we now only have till the end of September. We're definitely only at a partial count here in Medford, and we have a lot of, as the resolution says, communities who are more difficult to count. This is obviously incredibly impactful. As we know, we have a budget crisis that will only be made worse if we lose federal and state funding that we need. So it's really urgent. clearly, you know, the administration, the city administration or the folks who really have the power to work on this. So I didn't include specifics, but I think a couple suggestions just over the next month would be one, maybe putting out a few of those lawn signs and important rotaries and other major intersections so that people really are seeing the visibility. Knowing that the census something that says that the deadline is moved up and I think something else that you know, it's difficult but I think is important is we are going to have those census takers going out in person and I think something like a Communicating with the team that we're working with on the census. I know neil osborne's really big on this but Maybe a reverse 911 call so that people know that this is happening. That's why someone might be ringing your doorbell It's really important to get that response in Those are just a few things and I know the administration's been working on it. So it's just um with this added this deadline moved up, I think we just need to add even more emphasis on it. So I know that there's folks from the public who wanna speak on this as well, but that's why I put the motion forward. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: I just have a question for rule 38. I'm not seeing the building commissioner or the chair of the historical commission here. I'm wondering if we should postpone this until they can be available to be here for this topic.
[Zac Bears]: Um and you know, the building department is the one that's putting in procedures to ensure that the ordinance is properly followed, as the building commissioner said in his response today to all of us. Um so again, I really wish that we had the people here to really answer this question formally. But just given what's happening in our city with the absolutely that's happening on West Street with just the complete gutting of a house. And quite frankly, the fact that we need these proper procedures in place to make sure that existing ordinances are being followed to the letter. The historical commission has no authority over permits, so it's not the historical commission. The building department is putting in procedures. The building commissioner sent an email to that effect. I support the committee of the whole that we've already voted on last month. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information, Mr. President. I'm still not sure what this is, but, you know, zoning is how we as a community determine land use. That's really what zoning is. And to be clear, I believe what the commissioner said today is new procedures were implemented by the building department to assure the contractors and homeowners are adhering to the historical commission's demolition delay ordinance guidelines and recommendations. So thank you, Mr. President. Motion to receive in place on file.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be brief. I mean, this is exactly why I was hoping that rule 38 would be ruled as applying here. Clearly, there's not correct information floating around and until we have it, we're just going to keep having conversations not based on the truth. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: I think we need to all be on the same set of facts. That is why I support the committee of the whole.
[Zac Bears]: I withdraw my motion. My motion was out of order.
[Zac Bears]: Move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to adjourn, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Just that I think Derek said it very well and Councilor Marks as well. I'm supportive of some of the ideas around this, but I want to see it happen as part of a larger process.
[Zac Bears]: Just if President Falco or Councilor Knight, do you know where we are on the ticking clock on this zoning change? Is there a date?
[Zac Bears]: Great. And both taking COGS legal and just, we need to get this done. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Something should come up on your screen when he presses the button that says unmute. There you go, you're unmuted.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Second, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Second, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Second, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to add that I fully support this. I'm a neighbor down the street on Fellsway West, and we need safer crossings on Elm Street.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I bring this resolution before the council today at the request of hundreds of residents who've asked that we hang a Black Lives Matter banner on Medford City Hall. This moment of uprising and reckoning with our history of white supremacy and racism demands it. As my fellow councilors and the public know, many communities have placed similar banners on schools, town halls, and other city buildings to show solidarity, respect, and support for the movement to address the ongoing structural racism that has been tearing families and communities apart in this country for centuries. We've seen protests and demonstrations for Black lives in our community, thousands of people standing up in person, online, through lawn signs and conversations to say no more, to say that we will not sweep this under the rug or treat this as a side issue when we know we can't move forward as a nation, as a community, or as a human family without permanent transformative change on the issues of structural racism and economic inequity. I expect we will have a robust discussion tonight. I hope it does not include any conspiracy theories that have been being forwarded around about this being some sort of fundraising front for the Democratic Party. And I also expect to hear the need to take action and not just say more words. And the assertion that this is about symbolism and not about substance. I would agree that it's about time that we dive deeply into charter review, rethinking how we elect elected officials in an all at large way. that diminishes racial representation and has been struck down by courts in other Massachusetts communities. I would agree that it's about time that we transform our city zoning and really root out the history of racial bias and zoning that permeated the zoning process when zoning was last reviewed in the city decades ago. Action is necessary. These are urgent projects on the path of transformation and they will take time, but words matter. Words matter. What we say matters. How we convey our support to the community matters. And I hope that by saying these words, we spur ourselves to take on the bigger things that we have to do as well. We know, and we've heard from Black parents and children and grandparents and brothers and sisters and neighbors and friends, from our neighbors and friends and residents of color, that this community has caused harm, that many have felt exclusion and disillusion and persecution in this community. I can never understand that. But when I try to even imagine the thousand stabs and paper cuts that our coworkers, neighbors, and friends of color experience on a daily basis, I can't begin to describe the horror that I feel. And I want every black parent, every child of color, every person in this community to know and to see when they walk by our city hall, the seat of power in this community, that we stand with them, that we hear them, that we will listen to them, talk to them, and empower them to lead this fight and fight alongside them, undaunted and undeterred. If my best friend experiences racist treatment, which I've seen over and over when we've been together, and then drives by our city hall, I want him to look up and see that we know that his life matters and that we are working to make that truly alive and real for everyone who calls Medford home. I wanna look up and know that. Mr. President, that's why I put forward this resolution why I and many others think this is a necessary and overdue step, and why I ask for my colleague's support. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I was actually going to make a similar point that there have been a variety of banners with co-logoed with the city and private organizations. So I'm not sure what the policy is. I'm certainly interested to see what the policy is, just specifically on the First Amendment argument and the idea that the city hall could become a billboard. The First Amendment is designed to protect citizens of the United States, and it's incorporated to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts through the 14th Amendment, from the government interfering with the private right to communicate. The government has not offered City Hall as a billboard to anyone. It's not that any citizen could just come and apply to put whatever banner up that they want, as far as I know. So if such a process were to be initiated, then there may be First Amendment concerns. But if the city itself is deciding what messages to put out on city property, and not an open input for, you know, it's not a bulletin board, right? That's the difference in the First Amendment. The city has a complete right to put messages up on city property. It doesn't have the right to infringe on private property and, well, it doesn't have the right to infringe on the residents' use of their free speech or freedom of expression.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just a couple of things. I hear you, I'm sure there are thousands of spurious lawsuits filed all the time, judicial watches, well known as an organization of files, though. I understand, though, that lawsuits can be filed. I would just say, I don't think there should be a permitting process for putting banners up on City Hall. I think that would create the problems that are being brought up here. I don't think this is a slippery slope. There have been banners hung on the building for years. And I would just add that if the council doesn't want to be the banner approval authority, then it's on the councilors not to introduce a lot of resolutions about banners. So that's all I'll say. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Bears.
[Zac Bears]: I don't disagree that we should have a policy. I'm just saying that if we created an open permit, then we get into these First Amendment questions, which we're currently not facing. However, the mayor would like to approach this, I'm happy with. And personally, I would be fine if we hung a Black Lives Matter banner on every municipal building in the city.
[Zac Bears]: It would be that we suggest or ask the mayor.
[Zac Bears]: I believe that given the fact that, as we've already been told and said, The mayor has control over the building that functionally the language as existing serves as a suggestion to the mayor.
[Zac Bears]: I'm saying that we will do this, and then it would be, you know, the mayor is the one who makes that choice. Thank you for the clarification.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just a short message. I just want to read from the letter from the Birmingham jail by Dr. King, which is, I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride towards freedom is not the white citizen's Councilor or the Ku Klux Klan-er, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to order than to justice, who prefers a negative peace, which is the absence of tension, to a positive peace, which is the presence of justice, and who constantly says, I agree with you and the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods. So let's not talk about Dr. King in such a way. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Very quickly, this is not in any way an attempt to divide the city. I think what's dividing the city is decades, if not centuries of unaddressed discrimination. This is an attempt to heal. I can't say it any better than Grace about how important this is to so many people that we do this. So let's do it. This is the action we can take. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, I moved approval and got a second from Councilor Morell at the beginning of this discussion.
[Zac Bears]: All right. I so move, and then I said I so move, and then Councilor Morell said second, and then I believe the chair acknowledged the second.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, I accept the ruling of the chair, but I think if we watch the recording, we'll see that Councilor Morell said that she seconds the motion.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, I'd like to move to amend to ask the clerk to check the recording to see if this motion is in order.
[Zac Bears]: That's fine, Mr. President. I'm not gonna challenge your ruling once again, because I know I'll lose, but I will bring it up when we discuss the records next month. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: There's no Mr. Ripley. So there is there is truth and truth and falsehood.
[Zac Bears]: Could you reread the motion, Mr. Clerk?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. As we're aware, we're in the midst of a global pandemic. The governor of the Commonwealth has abdicated his responsibility to provide clear guidelines for both elementary and secondary education, as well as our institutions of higher learning. So I have heard from many residents who are deeply concerned about the reopening plan that's been proposed by Tufts University. I do want to also mention that the mayor and the mayor's office has sent a letter to President Monaco at Tufts and also that the mayor has received a response to that letter. So there has been some communication. I would like to ask either if Chief of Staff Rodriguez has anything quickly now or in a written update that we get information on exactly how the mayor and the health director were consulted by the university. Was there an approval process that the city had to approve the reopening plan or not? What did that consultation look like? I think the big unanswered question, which is what happens if there is an outbreak or, you know, what happens if this doesn't go the way that Tufts is expecting it to go? I spoke with Rocco DiRico. He mentioned that, you know, he kind of outlined similarly to the response that was sent to the mayor, what their plan is. I felt slightly better, but I would just say again that the uncertainty is so great that bringing this many people back seems potentially unwise to me. So that's the intent of this resolution.
[Zac Bears]: Second, Councilor Knights. Move to approve.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, we have Laurel Ruma.
[Zac Bears]: Let's just get rid of it. Councilor Knight moved to approve, and I seconded.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, before we start, I just need to say something. Thank you. So at the previous meeting on this ordinance, I had recused myself as I was awaiting guidance from the State Ethics Commission on whether I could participate in these discussions due to an investment that I had in the Medford Brewing Company. I received guidance from the State Ethics Commission, which included that if I and my parents were both to divest our relatively small investments in the Medford Brewing Company, and then I were to file a disclosure with the clerk's office, that I would be able to participate in these discussions. We have divested from our investments and I have filed said disclosure with the clerk. So I will be participating going forward. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to say thank you to Councilor Morell for proposing the amendment, and I strongly support it. I think this is exactly what Medford needs at this moment, and we shouldn't be standing in the way. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve as amended, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Correct. Councilor Bears. Are we voting on the amendment or the motion to sever?
[Zac Bears]: On the amendment. Yes. To sever? I vote on the motion to sever.
[Zac Bears]: Let's see. Motion to refer the paper as amended to the Community Development Board.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, motion to revert to the regular order of business.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, that's fine.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just, I'm just getting going Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Marks.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, motion to waive the reading in favor of a brief synopsis from the petitioner.
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to revert to the regular order of business.
[Zac Bears]: I will be brief and then leave it to Councilor Morell and just say that this virus is unpredictable. We are at a low case count in Massachusetts right now. That could change very quickly. Given the fact that it's 1.20 in the morning and not many people are left paying attention, I would appreciate if the administration could give a written update along these lines as to whether or not they've considered reversing reopenings or slowing things down and share that with the council and with the public in a relatively timely manner. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Pretty self-explanatory. A West City website review was mentioned. I'd like it to be discussed with the council. It's also along the lines of a couple of resolutions that the council passed that I proposed, I think at our June 30th meeting regarding council communications and subcommittees. So whether those could be back to back or in one meeting, whatever is preferable, I just think the topics are interrelated and something we should be taking a look at. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Most motion are received and placed on file, and make best efforts to schedule this promptly.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Well then just a motion that we make best efforts to schedule this promptly.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I found the records sufficient and precise, Mr. President, and I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just is this a paper in order, Mr. President?
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, point of information.
[Zac Bears]: I respect what Councilor Marks said, but the paper in front of us right here doesn't have Zoom in it. It says email and phone only. My understanding, COVID orders, members, department heads, and members of the public need to be able to participate remotely. We're gonna end up after tomorrow's meeting, if there is one, it seems like that's the direction it's going. We're gonna end up after tomorrow's meeting in the place we were last week. But instead of two weeks to debate a budget, we're gonna have one week to debate a budget. So we're gonna end up where we were. You know, I need to be able to participate by Zoom. And quite frankly, hundreds of people have participated and have been very angry that these meetings haven't moved forward. We're just going to be where we were with less time. So I'm very disappointed in the actions that have been taken.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, motion while we're under suspension to take public participation out of order.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Are people shutting off the video? People are saying their video is being shut off. I'm just getting a lot of messages that people's videos are being shut off for holding up messages, so I hope that's not happening.
[Zac Bears]: I'm really disappointed in that action that's happening right now.
[Zac Bears]: I just think if we're going to be slinging accusations and calling people dividing the city, let's, let's name it. Right. I, I don't know what you're talking about. If you're talking about our revolution, Medford, I think that's an insult to people who are organized. Okay. Well, you're, you're saying that people are dividing the city. You're saying that other Councilors are doing it and where the other Councilors who showed up to the meetings. I'm just saying, I don't want a divided city.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, I think it's a shame. I think it's a shame that people organizing for their community are, are belittled. I think it's a shame. So I'm going to keep showing up to meetings, Mr. President, and I, I'm sure there'll be on zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, point of information. It'll be my last one. I just want to also add and inform the public as well that if we're talking about dividing the city, there are elected officials who have had threats made against them in the past two weeks. There are elected officials who have the police watching their house in the past two weeks. So yes, there are people in this community who are making threats because the democratic process isn't sufficient for their beliefs. And I think that's a shame. And I just want people to know that, that's where we are. People are getting threats. So we need to do better.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for the last three days. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I think, I think it's respecting the public and the people of Medford to let them know what's on the agenda or what's being proposed and how Councilors feel about it. I think keeping people in the dark is wrong. So that's why I did what I did. If this had been posted on the agenda, or if we had had the time to put this on the agenda, that's how I would have approached it. I respect the people of Menford knowing what's going on. And this has been a very tense weekend, as we all know. Sleepless nights, I think Councilor Scarpelli said. So people asked what was happening. I told them what was happening to the best of my ability. And to be quite frank, I took special efforts, not to make it personal about other Councilors, not to name other Councilors. Even if people ask me who showed up and who didn't, I didn't answer that question. So I just want to say that to the public of Medford, I did what I did because I think you have a right to know, and I think we need to move forward. And that's why I did it. So respect to the council and respect to the people is behind my actions.
[Zac Bears]: So did we all, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's why I showed up.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information, isn't this table because it's out of order? Automatically.
[Zac Bears]: Then no.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to take back the public participation out of order.
[Zac Bears]: Council appears. Thank you, Mr. President. Alicia, is there any concern that this will, you know, are we gonna have enough retained earnings going forward if we have any issues?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to take public participation out of order under suspension.
[Zac Bears]: Were you aware that I had the power to just do whatever I want in the city? Because I certainly wasn't. And I just want to thank, again, the hundreds of people who keep turning out and participating in city government. So thank you very much, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: I grew up in the city. I live here. I don't actually care to speak to you. I don't know what you're saying. One at a time.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to say that, you know, if people are going to throw around accusations, they would actually say what they're trying to say, because it just sounds like dog whistling to me. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Just to your point, my fellow, Zach, there's some items on the agenda later in the agenda that I put on that would address how the council is communicating and engaging the public. So thanks for your comments.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, if you go to the events calendar, you should be able to get a link. It wasn't posted in the upcoming meeting section this week because our website is, it's, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Hi, everybody, I'm Ari Fritig, 6th Street, apartment 3 in Medford. I just wanted to say, to pipe up to say it's now 10.23 at night, and I love my community so much right now. I've lived in Medford since 2012, although as somebody else said that that shouldn't matter. So many people are coming forward to make their voice heard. Here we are, it's almost 10.30, and there's still, I think, over 220 people on the Zoom. That is really incredible. And in the interest of unity, I want to get at a few points that it sounds like we all agree on. It sounds like we all agree that we want the city council meetings to be as accessible as possible for everyone and as many people as possible. We all want to pass a budget as quickly as possible. We all want to do right by the whole community. But I want to echo the person who said that the four city councilors need to consider their impact of their actions over their intent and want to build on that point. I have no doubt that their intentions are good from their perspective, but the impact of their actions were that hundreds of their fellow citizens were waiting for them to show up, but they did not show up without a statement. The impact was that it delayed the budget process that we all want to pass, and now we're up against a harder deadline. The impact of that was that one person said that tonight was his statement, but that absence let others draw their own conclusions, which added to the divisiveness that he himself railed against. So finally, I just want to echo also what I think it was Sophie Rick said it is up to the city council to be responsible and follow public health guidance and to say, you know, when somebody wants to have a meeting in person, especially if it's going to be over 10 people. that doesn't follow public health, the best public health practices. There's been so many points that have been made that I agree with, that I can't get them all, but I think it is for public officials to do what is in the best interest of the public health and the community as a whole. And that's what I haven't seen from those four city councilors. And I just wanted to let people know that. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm gonna try to answer both questions and be relatively quick because I know how late it is, but they also deserve serious thought. In terms of unconscious bias, I don't know if I've talked about it here before, but, um, the year before my senior year of college, my best friend was killed, hit and killed by a car. And, um, you know, I learned a lot that year about what it means to be a product of the circumstances and the systems around you. Um, and to see how I was given a lot of chances that a lot of our friends weren't given to make up the assignment or. make up the test or, um, you know, just live my life and, and be sad and not show up to class for months and still get a good grade because I did the work at the end of the day. Um, and I have friends who were impacted deeply by that, that, that, um, who didn't have the privileges that I had, um, who, who weren't afforded that opportunity. And between that and reading and learning and speaking to friends and speaking to people, um, One of the most I wrote for my college paper and and my senior column was almost entirely about this and and it was a huge learning experience for me and um and You know, i'll end it there. But but that's that's really when I started to really grapple with this in a deep way um and then separately You know in terms of the council Look at our voting record. So much of our votes are 7-0 I sit between Councilor Scarpelli and Councilor Knight. I often lean over and ask them a question, you know, especially the first meeting when I had, you know, quite frankly, not quite the idea of what I was doing. And they've been incredibly helpful in providing information and institutional knowledge of the council. Councilor Marks and Councilor Caraviello, we had a great subcommittee meeting together on housing and housing stability during this crisis. So we do a lot together and we get a lot done. That doesn't mean we don't disagree often and that those disagreements aren't serious. But we work together, we work through it, we're here for the city of Medford. So that's why I show up. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to, you know, systemic racism is real. It's a national and a local crisis. And I apologize for the false information that was put out there just a moment ago regarding, you know, these fake ideas of Black-on-Black crime and all of that. You know, that's just ridiculous. The reason that crime is the way it is is that our country is segregated and our city is segregated. So again, systemic racism is a national and local crisis. And for the 146 people who've been here for four and a half hours, sorry that you had to hear that.
[Zac Bears]: Can I just, this might just be on my account. If we do that, will they be placed into the record, Mr. Clerk? You just muted yourself. You've actually been unmuted.
[Zac Bears]: That's fine with me. I don't want to.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. you know, I think it's an apt item to be on the agenda for tonight after four and a half hours of public participation that I think overall went very well. But one of the biggest pieces of feedback I've been hearing in the past couple of weeks at the Human Rights Commission meeting, and just from residents in general is, how can we, and I think we heard it tonight too, right? You know, how can we make it clear and easier and provide guidance and help for people to participate in our meetings and participate in city government and make sure that we're doing that in a way that breaks down barriers that might exist right now. I think that would be the intent of this resolution and the subcommittee is to have a group of us, hopefully of different minds on issues like this to come together and say, here are some ways that we could work together, work with the clerk's office, work with the city administration to make sure that things are posted in a clear and equitable manner on the city website, and that kind of thing. So that is my resolution and the intent of it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I mean, I think these are actions along the lines of potentially what the subcommittee I proposed would do, but I would just, I think they're good. I think they're clear low-hanging fruit actions that we can take. I would make a motion to send this to committee of the whole as well for the same discussion as the subcommittee.
[Zac Bears]: I second what both Councilor Marks and Councilor Morell said. And I just wanted to add, this came across, I get the state house news service. It came across my desk. I immediately forwarded it to the mayor's office. And I know that they have been working as well to take advantage of this program in some way. I don't know if they've applied. So that's why I strongly support this, but I at least know they were interested. So I hope that this is just a win-win-win for Medford. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Correct.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I thank everyone who's spoken so far. I agree with Councilor Morell's concern around that this money might be better used. I think one of the big concerns right now is the average estimate for a school district to go back to school with all the COVID stuff is over a million and a half dollars. I think that stands for Medford as well. So, we're in a bad place. We're cutting significant amounts from the budget. I mean, as Councilor Morell said, and I think as Councilor Caraviellola's motion is intended, the plan is already to cover the deficit with free cash. even with that in place, we're seeing big cuts and layoffs and positions that won't get filled and, you know, seniors who won't have guidance Councilors, you know, head of guidance, I should say. So that's, you know, the free cash won't get us out of this. It's not enough to stop cuts on the school side or the city side, which are already in a desperate place. So yeah, it's certainly, you know, We can't be making cuts like this right now. I know that we're in a difficult budget situation, but these are essential services and, you know, students are gonna need more, the city's gonna need more, and we're gonna be asking people to do more with less. And we know how that turns out and how that's turned out historically. So, you know, there's not enough free cash to fix this problem is my understanding. I hope that changes.
[Zac Bears]: Just a question for you, actually, Mr. President. What is the plan schedule? Just, you know, public's watching. We're talking about the debate. We're talking about our meeting Saturday. What's our plan there? What's the schedule for those meetings?
[Zac Bears]: Just, just for the folks watching. So. keep an eye out that, you know, at least as early as Saturday and certainly next week, they're going to be multiple budget meetings held by the council. And, um, is the Saturday up in the air still maybe, maybe not, or should people really be preparing for that?
[Zac Bears]: Good. And just, yeah. And will that be, that'll be public online as well on, on the team.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Just wanted to make sure Saturday, Saturday morning cartoons.
[Zac Bears]: It has to be disposed of. It's been introduced. Yeah, it's been introduced.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Move down the bottom of the hill and the highway drowns it out, let me tell you.
[Zac Bears]: I did. Thank you, Mr. Vice President. I just wanted to add that, you know, President Falco takes the bus every day. I couldn't say it better than him, but you know, this is a time when we need more bus service, when we want to have fewer people packed into buses and trains. I mean, the, the, the emails I got were, you know, obviously inconvenience. I need to get to work, but it was, you know, now I'm going to have to put myself in more danger transfer between multiple trains just to get to the same location that I would buy the bus. So, you know, it's an important transit issue and we need more bus service, but it's a health issue for people during this pandemic.
[Zac Bears]: abstain due to conflict of interest.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to suspend the reading in favor of a synopsis.
[Zac Bears]: I can try. I think it's easier than reading this whole thing.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to table to the end of the meeting.
[Zac Bears]: I'd be happy to meet outside on a sunny day, six feet away with a mask on, but just my actual point is, that it's incredibly frustrating that we're at this point. I understand the difficulty, I understand this is unprecedented, but people are really concerned about this budget and they have a right to be. And the fact that a lot of us, basically everyone feels in the dark is just gonna, the longer that we go, the bigger a problem this is gonna be with residents feeling in the dark. So I, next week is, it's late. I think we need something by Friday if we're gonna be able to do this right.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I don't want to belabor it, but you know, We didn't get much solid information early. I understand the circumstances are difficult, but, you know, I personally feel the communication hasn't been enough. And I understand that people can disagree about that, but I don't think we're going to get any further here. So I move the question.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to say that people clearly really want to have this conversation, and I think it's important that we as a council take it on. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I second what everyone has said, and I graduated from Medford High in 2011, and those memories are still there, and the friendships are still there. And I think also we've done a lot as a community, and I just wanna acknowledge all the folks who have put up signs, put up those signs all around town, Class of 2020, Medford Strong, and signs on folks' lawns as well, because I think As everyone has said, we're gonna need to do extra to make sure that the class of 2020 has the memories that they deserve to have, or at least as many as we can give them. So thank you to everyone who's been supporting people.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I appreciate the consideration of my colleagues. I'm gonna read a little bit. A chorus of people from across Medford have reached out to their elected officials in the last week and two to demand anti-racist action from our city. I've only been a city councilor for a few months, but this is by far the most contact I've received from Medford residents. The murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and thousands of other black Americans at the hands of police are horrific and yet all too common examples of the ongoing violence of white supremacy and structural racism in our country and right here in our community. Medford residents, especially young black residents, are sharing stories online about the racism and hate that they've experienced in our schools and on our streets. While some people were shocked by these horrific accounts, people commit racist acts or make racist remarks every single day in Medford. The many people who spoke at the powerful Black Lives Matter vigil at Hormel Stadium last week confirmed those stories of racism in our community and shared more of their own. I attended the Medford public schools. I remember the racist and hateful remarks that I would hear on a near daily basis. It doesn't surprise me to know that this racism was even worse than I knew or that I could see as a white student. None of us did enough to stop it. And sometimes we didn't do anything at all. Racism is a Medford problem. Medford has a deep history, and some of that is a deep history of racism, and we don't talk about it. Medford also has a deep history of anti-racist organizing, of abolitionists, and of black-led movements for racial equity and justice for all, which we almost never talk about as a community. I want to particularly note the story of Shirley Kuntz, who in the late 1960s fought to desegregate the Hervey School, where I attended elementary school. Medford Historical Society hosts on their website a history of the many African American Medford residents who have fought racial injustices and advocated for everyone in our community. Medford residents of color have repeatedly stood up and demanded change and a real commitment to fight racism in Medford, even in the recent past. But as I've heard too often this week from people who fought for that change, they said, quote, still nothing has changed. No more. First, we have to declare systemic racism as a public health emergency here in Medford. One of the deepest impacts of racism are the racial health disparities that lead to poor medical treatment, illness, and death for people of color. This was the subject of my undergraduate thesis at UMass Amherst, and we know that even after you control for income or wealth or any other factor, Black people and people of color have worse health outcomes just because of their race. The increased illness and early death of our neighbors and friends is an emergency. This declaration is one of the municipal actions requested as part of the 10-point agenda from the Massachusetts Black and Latino Legislative Caucus, and they were joined with many elected officials of color from across the state. Yes, at the beginning, this is symbolic, but it's also a statement of values, a statement that we are taking this seriously and something that the community must use to hold us, your elected officials, accountable to taking action. I'm also hopeful that under a different national administration, we will see increased funding, coming to communities that declare these emergencies. I wanna close by thanking Mayor Lungo-Koehn, who I heard today has also committed to issuing an order declaring systemic racism a public health emergency here in Medford. All of the city's elected officials need to make this an urgent priority. And more importantly than anything, this cannot be the end. This must be a continuation of the work unsung and unheard and unfulfilled that people in this community have been doing literally for centuries. We have to take this seriously. We have to fight racism. We have to make Medford anti-racist. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I mean, the intent here and the intent of the next motion is that the 14 white people who are in elected office might not have the best answers to these questions. And I don't think that we should just go ahead and say, we can solve racism. We don't experience it. So I think the intent of this is to say, this is a crisis, this is an emergency. We need to take action, as Councilor Morell and I said, You know, this is a starting point. This is a statement of values and we have to live up to those values through action I could put ten things on the agenda tonight But I think I want to hear from black residents and residents of color about what they want to do moving forward And and residents of the community. I think we have to have an open process and open conversation and I don't think That us coming up with ideas in a room is necessarily the best way to do that. So I That's the intent of this and the intent of the following motion is to bring the public in because at the end of the day, a lot of this is about how we all live our lives and us saying something and us putting something out, we can get to a lot of problems, but the biggest thing we need to do is do the education and do the conversation and have that community process so that we can, how many people saw things or heard things in the past week that they never thought were happening in this city. Because I know 15 who texted me about it, and I'm sure that there's many more. The intent here is this is a statement of our values. We're taking this seriously. We're going to take action. So that's the intent of this. And I think we have to involve the community as openly and widely as possible to do that. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I mean, I don't know how I could have made it any clearer that this is a starting point for the action that we're talking about, that this is a beginning. This is not even a beginning, a continuation and a recognition. And just to the point, this is action. This is an action that we are being Asked to take by the black and latino elected officials of this commonwealth. They said Municipalities, this is one of the actions we want you to take and it's not about somerville. It's not about anything else This is about the fact that black and latino elected officials across the state have said we want communities to do this And i'm listening to them. So that's why this is on the agenda And that's why I put it forward i'm listening to them And I want the next item is about a forum so that we can listen to people in this community and get to the agreement and make these changes. That's what I'm talking about. That's what the intention is. All else I wanted to say is I'm so grateful for all of the people who showed up tonight, all the people who spoke, and I likely won't speak again on this topic, but who knows.
[Zac Bears]: motion to join this with paper 2406, the request for a forum with the mayor that I put on the agenda for tonight's meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. The intent of this was very similar to the discussion that we had. And I just, essentially, I think we need to have a forum. But I think the most important thing is that we're going to have a bunch of councilors, the mayor, chief of police, all these folks in the room. It can't be about us talking. It needs to be about us listening. And that's what I'm most concerned about. Um, you know, we need to make sure that we are not just taking action because we want to take action. And I understand the urgent desire for action, but as Divya said, if people of color don't even feel comfortable and safe coming to public meetings and spaces and speaking, you know, that forum is going to be very, it's not going to be what we need it to be. So, um, the intent of this motion is very similar to, uh, to that before. And I would just make one amendment. It's cultural concerns regarding racism and policing. So two separate topics. I think we need to talk about both. Racism in our community goes far beyond anything about policing. It's everywhere.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to echo. I want to echo Councilor Morell and I just want to say I just got a text from a Medford resident of color, I'm not going to put them on the spot, who said there's a lot of hate on Facebook right now and it scared people away from this meeting. So I just again, you know, racism has a lot of different impacts and one of them is who shows up here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm happy to report that the bill actually passed late last weekend, has been signed into law. Spoke with Representative Donato about it as well. One thing that the bill allows the city to do is to look at special revenue funds and using those for general fund expenses if needed. There's also a variety of other municipal budget items in that bill. So I withdraw the paper as it's no longer relevant.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I think as everyone I think we really need to talk in this community about need and unmet need for the essential services that we provide. I know that the school committee has had an extensive budget process. Much of it was based on being in a school building and having a normal year revenue. But I still think that the information discussed there is valuable so that we can see what the educators, what the parents, what the community is thinking that we are missing and that we need. I know it's been referred to as a wish list. I don't think reading specialists are a wish list item. I think those are needs, and I would just like us to be able to see the unmet need, knowing we might not be able to address it in this year's budget, but I think it's important for that scope. So that's the intent of this.
[Zac Bears]: Second, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Knight. Councilor Knight beat you to it, Councilor Marks. Oh, he did. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Hey, I changed my shirt.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm really glad to see you, Director Nunley, Benjamin, and Brian. Thank you for being here. Brian, I just had one question. People in the Bowen Ave area are talking all the time about the flooding. It's a huge issue for them, quality of life issue. And I was just wondering how far will this get us in getting to a solution to that?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And so this would you think you have the design and all of that would this actually get us to fixing it or is this just analyzing and figuring out how to fix it?
[Zac Bears]: you. Got it. Well, I thank you for taking it up because the residents in that area. It's a major major issue for them. Um. And then I just had a question for Alicia. Um And. You know, I think you might have to unmute. Um so I guess my question is just, you know. I think this is these are really important projects. But do everything we can to avoid cuts. Is there any way that putting the funds towards these projects, which I agree are really important, could impact, are we putting money into this and this money maybe could be used later to maintain existing services or is this completely separate?
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. Thank you. I appreciate it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I want to echo what my colleagues have said and also echo really thank Peter and Luke for everything they've been doing. This issue is really important now. You know, we've had a little bit of a reprieve. Air travel is down. But everyone is spending all their time at home now. So people are trying to work from home under this noise. I mean, it's just it's not doable for a lot of folks. And I know it's been a real stress for people. So I hope we can get their update. And then I know I'm on some email lists with folks who've been working on this. There's a meeting next week. of the Massport Community Advisory Council. I think it's Massport Community Advisory Committee, CAC, where they're going to be discussing some options that Councilor Mark's referring to. I believe it's June 11th. And I know that some residents have requested that local officials try to be on that meeting if they can. Of course, it's a Zoom digital meeting. So that's just, I just wanted to put that out there as well.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And, you know, I have a couple of comments, but I just want to say, and no personal at all question to you, Councilor Caraviello, but I agree we need to keep revenue coming in, but we are not a business in the normal sense. Our demand goes up when times are bad. It's not a time when we can... pull back, you know, it's very different. Um, so I just wanted to put that out there and again, nothing to you directly, Mr. Vice president.
[Zac Bears]: No.
[Zac Bears]: No, and I agree with that 100%. So my comment substantively, it's just the word business. I hear it in government people, it's just a personal thing. I understand. But on the substance, I tend to agree. I agree we have an affordable housing crisis. We need to do more. And for me, I tend to agree with what everyone has said, because we do need the growth. We do need to maintain revenue. But one thing about the 40B process is it removes some of our leverage in exactly that question. So, you know, I, I agree. We need these projects. We need more affordable housing, but 40 B gives us less power to negotiate with the developers. So if we can do these projects in a different way, that's always something I'm in favor of. Obviously these applications are in it's comprehensive permit. It's 40 B. So the cards kind of left the barn on, on, on these projects, but going forward, You know, we have more leverage to negotiate better agreements and bring more revenue in and meet community needs if we're doing these projects outside of 40B. So that's just my view on it.
[Zac Bears]: Just that, you know, I tend to agree with Mr. Navarre that our tax code is ridiculous. And there's a lot of ways we could make it better. And I hope that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts gives us the power to do it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll take this one first. And, you know, When the app, when web 2.0 and apps and all that stuff started coming and said, you know, we're going to get rid of the middleman between you and everything else. And in reality, what it's done is it's actually created middlemen and Grubhub and Uber Eats and DoorDash are the perfect example. 15 years ago, you want a pizza delivered, you called the restaurant, they delivered your pizza. Now you're paying an app 30% to get that pizza. So, um, you know, it's kind of ridiculous. I think we need to do something to rein it in. It's especially tough right now when you have all takeout or delivery. You don't have the in-service dining. Demand is so down for restaurants. So that's the intent of putting this forward. I spoke to Representative Donato over the weekend, and he said that the House has put this into a bill for statewide. So what this bill would have done is let us, locals, communities, decide on this. The House has actually said, we're going to cap it at 15% statewide. So they are moving that bill forward. It hasn't moved through the Senate yet, so I think it's still worth us sending this resolution up in support of this concept. But I am encouraged that the State House is planning to do a statewide bill capping these fees at 15%, which should really help out the restaurants who have been, in a sense, getting exploited by these apps.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and to Councilor Marks' point, I think It's good to have this for the emergency, but we should maybe try to take this up again after and see if the Commonwealth might give the municipality some authority here to really look at this, because Councilor Marks is right. We're just sending millions of dollars a year out of the community through these apps down to Wall Street and Silicon Valley. So they don't need it, we need it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. So I think, I mean, the effects of this economic crisis and the pandemic are, you know, who knows what they're all going to be, but one of them has been already a real decimation of the childcare industry and our daycare industry. And it's really worrying for trying to go back to, you know, new normal or whatever we want to call it. When schools are open, people are back in work and we have a childcare industry that's in the state that it's in. I think we all received a message from some folks who are worried about their own daycare in this city. They've only been able to access some of the government programs and a significant portion of the funds, especially some of the funds that are coming down to municipalities are not able to go to a nonprofit organizations. So this resolution, one, I know that Tufts has a fund for nonprofits. They're issuing one time $1,000 grants. $10,000 is not going to get a daycare very far in terms of payroll and rent and all the things that come with it. So, whatever possible, I've spoken with some folks in the administration and I understand that the law is difficult, but whatever we can do to provide some assistance to our daycares and social service organizations that are really struggling right now, I think the city administration should look into that, you know, with extra attention.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. No, we can hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. Yeah, I mean The scope of this tragedy and the impact on the Medford community and our entire country. I Don't think we're we I don't think it's set in yet. We've lost a hundred thousand people across the country and We've lost over 100 people just in nursing homes here in Medford. And I think Councilor Morell's point, especially about who's been impacted and the communities that have been hit hardest, you know, this has been a difficult couple months and then the difficult couple weeks too. And, you know, communities of color, low income communities, environmental justice communities that have really been hurt by the coronavirus crisis are now also, you know, facing the emotional hurt and the and the real pain of these protests and the protests against the murders of black men. So I think this is a time of mourning. And I just, it's hard for me to even put into words what we're going through as a nation right now. And I'm just glad that we residents and people are taking the time to mourn. And I think we're going to have to talk about it more and more over the next few months and years.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, I said my favorite part.
[Zac Bears]: Say again, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, just to the clerk, just FYI that on the city website, if you go to the upcoming meetings link for this meeting, it says 7 PM on the website, not 5 30 PM. The agenda when you click the PDF is correct, but the website itself says 7 PM. So. We might just want to try to see if they can change that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Mike, for your speech and especially for your service. I was lucky enough for many years as a member of the Medford High School band to be a part of our traditional Memorial Day remembrance. And I'm very disappointed that we weren't able to do that this year and I wasn't able to be there as a city councilor. But I do know that in addition to the flags, there were door decorations and memoriam, just so much from people all across the city, really making this as best as possible. a memorial day to remember, even though we can't be together. So thank you for everything you've been doing, Mike, and thanks to everybody else.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I echo everything that my colleagues have said. And Brian has been fantastic as well. But I want to give a special thanks to the folks at DPW who are also down at the cemetery right now. As we all know, there's been a significant growth in people dying, and I think that's really difficult work, and they've been making it happen. So in addition to the whole DPW, I just want to recognize them in a very difficult time doing very difficult work.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I'll throw an amendment onto the pile. I would just like to also, and I don't even know exactly how possible this is. So just something to keep in mind for the city administration, hopefully, since we're inviting the state delegation, that at any meeting, at such a meeting that the state delegation and the city administration provide an update on Any timelines for the release of bond bill funds? I think one thing we know is the legislature passes things, but they have to be authorized by the governor's office. And very often that never happens. So at least that's my experience with bond bills for public higher education. So that's just one of the issues with bonding. So I'd just like to see how those discussions, if there are any updates or if any of those discussions have been had. I spoke longer than the motion, is it clear?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. As we know, it's been several weeks now since we got this program up and running. I've been lucky enough to be working with Roberta and Danielle and several other folks from the CPC and the city just to check in and see how it's going, connect people to the program. With the level of unemployment and the significant economic issues that we're facing, I think it's really good that we set this program up. I will say that, you know, I expect sooner rather than later that the first installment of funds that we use will likely be used. I'm not going to speak to that directly. I think we have actually Roberta and Danielle here from the CPC who have more direct information. But the need is great. A lot of communities, especially surrounding communities, have put in even larger amounts of funds. I know that we're limited. But I'll just say it again, the need is great. So that's why I put this on the agenda, hoping to get an update. and also just for anyone watching to hear about this program.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to again thank Roberta, Danielle, and also a lot of other folks, anyone who's been communicating about this, putting information out, letting friends and neighbors know that there are options from the city to help. The last thing we need right now is anyone losing their housing. And it's been really, um, I've been grateful to see how many people in Medford have stepped up and volunteered to help make things like this and also assistance to, you know, guidance for other help, um, available.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I just put this on The agenda, I know that the last thing we need is any of our public employees, public safety, city hall, whatever it may be, being infected with coronavirus. So I just was wondering if the administration had an update on the efforts that we're making to make sure that all of our public employees can social distance and have protective equipment if they need it.
[Zac Bears]: Would the chief of staff mind just going through the highlights?
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to thank the Chief of Staff, both for the document and for the detailed explanation. I'm encouraged by it and I hope anyone watching is as well.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think along the same lines here, just, you know, we have this plan for city hall. I know that there's guidance that's going out to our local businesses and orders as well. And I know that the mayor spoke about it at the Westminster Community Center over the weekend, the digital legislative forum.
[Zac Bears]: Just one quick follow-up, Dave. The mayor mentioned that businesses are going to be posting a checklist on the door. Could you just explain what that is?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thank you, Dave. And thank you, Councilor Caraviello. I just want to say, I think, you know, enforcement, this is on us, right? This whole crisis is on us taking action together. And I think luckily we're in Medford where we know that people are gonna step up and follow the rules and keep everybody safe. So I'm just really glad you put this together and thanks for getting it out there and doing the outreach to make sure businesses are not only have the information, but know there's someone they can call if they have a question.
[Zac Bears]: Pretty self-explanatory. Vice President Caraviello brought up some stuff last week, and I'd love to see it on paper before we sit down and discuss it. So I move approval. Second.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Bears. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thanks, Ellen, that was a super helpful explanation. So is the number in here, there's just a typo in the notice, it's 10,000, the period's just in the wrong place, is that?
[Zac Bears]: And so and you said that, that, that the accounts under 10,000 are only 1% of the value of personal property. So 99% is in the accounts above 10,000.
[Zac Bears]: So two questions. One, I think it wouldn't be good if I didn't ask this, what exactly are we taxing in terms of personal property for a hair salon, for example, what would that actually mean?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. So I guess that's to my second question, which is, It sounds to me like there's a lot of time that goes into this relative to the return on your end. Do you have an estimate of how much tax revenue we would lose by doing this? And so that's my first part of the question.
[Zac Bears]: Basically, what you're saying is that that's a lot of work.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no, it sounds like a win win to me so thank you for the explanation and thanks for answering my questions.
[Zac Bears]: You know, I don't presume to be an expert, but I definitely support the intent here of bringing more commercial in, more mixed use development, more control back to this council over major projects. This might not be the exact language, but I'd like to, I would vote to send this to community development board and see what they say. And I hope that some of the concepts here are things that we discussed during our zoning review.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, I found the records immaculate.
[Zac Bears]: Exceptionally immaculate, Councilor Scott-
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a clarification, Rick. Use the phrase cutting and changing as are there cuts and changes being made to the project or are you saying that that might uh, Yeah, I know the administration, uh at the building meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Rick. Just one other quick question. Is it cosmetic changes to reduce the price or are there substantive?
[Zac Bears]: All right, so the building is still net zero and all that as far as you.
[Zac Bears]: Got it, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Second, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd just like to propose a B paper to this, completely agree with Councilor Knight. Also, getting an update on what efforts have been made to provide all the PPE that our first responders need, and any other safety that we've been able to implement.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, just quickly. Um, definitely appreciate the focus on safety and and I think it'd be great to get back when possible. Um On the plexiglass My understanding of how this works from the epidemiologist is that that helps you if you're in a short A short period of time and interaction. So like a grocery store We're only looking at someone for a minute or two You know if we're sitting there for hours the plexi our breath will eventually go over and around the plexiglass So I don't I don't know if that's um That's the right way to do it. I would like to propose a B paper.
[Zac Bears]: A B paper that it sounds like the city administration is putting together a plan. So as part of that, I'd love for us to see the council, essentially this, that the city administration include information on what surrounding communities are doing. with in terms of public meetings, and also any guidance from Governor Baker on public meetings in person.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I completely second what Councilor Morell said. I've been a part of the ward and city committee for almost four years now, and Nancy and Paula have done a ton of work to bring us together. And I also second Councilor Morell's statement that, you know, whatever committee of any partisanship, if there was a transition like this, we'd be congratulating them. So just want to thank Paul and Nancy for their years of service.
[Zac Bears]: Second, Mr. President. Councilor Bez. Thank you. I'd like to second that. And I was going to save my praise of Councilor Morell for this, this part of the agenda. But I think it speaks when anyone in this community volunteers their time for civic engagement for a community group for an organization to make the city better. That's good for all of us. And I think Councilor Morell is doing that here and so many other people we had over 30 people on our call last week, you know, a ton of people who are really committed to this city and this community. And I think Councilor Morell is going to be great. And Henry, I mean, you don't have to say anything about Henry. We all know how wonderful Henry is, leader in his community, brings people together, brought together the forum for council candidates last year. So I think we have two great leaders to fill the big shoes of Representative Donato and Nancy White.
[Zac Bears]: I do not. Councilor Bez. Thank you, Mr. President. If it's fine with Councilor Scarpelli, I'm wondering if we could add to that B paper, any updates from the city administration, from the traffic engineer on Locust Street, what they're going to do with Locust Street, given that that apartment building is opening and it's a mess, so.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli, I think.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I mean, these are huge losses to the Medford community, both, and to the Mustang community and the Mustang band. I actually, I think at one time, Kaitlin DiBenedetto, Anthony Prestigiovanni, and I were all in the Medford High band at the same time. So, you know, I can remember Anthony's graduation party and the food and just that family, really just, I can still remember the food as Councilor Scarpelli is laughing at. just great community leaders and raised the wonderful families who I had the benefit of being friends with. So, sad loss and send my condolences.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just a quick question, President Falco. Have you received any follow-up from the SHOP if we've heard back from them?
[Zac Bears]: Fantastic. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Just very quickly, Henry Malorin wanted me to relay that there were 36 people at our Democratic City Committee meeting last week.
[Zac Bears]: Indubitably.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Alicia, just a quick question. Are we voting on the additional stuff that you just presented to us or is that coming at a later time? The COVID stuff.
[Zac Bears]: Got it.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to second, thanks to everyone who advocated for this. I was in the first, fifth grade at the Brooks, and I can remember how dangerous it was even then as a 10 year old. I had two questions. One is just about Councilor Marks' motion. Would that just be between Winthrop Circle and the Woburn Street intersection?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no, I totally agree. And I'm actually, I think, leaving it. I would be encouraged to see both sections of how we could do that. I agree. So just wanted to make sure on that. And then Tim, kind of similar question, just what would it be possible to, what would it take to do that in your estimation?
[Zac Bears]: All right. Thanks, Tim. When you look at it, if we could look at something temporary, at least in between Winthrop Circle and Woburn, maybe just if we're not resurfacing, could we do temporary paint? Just kind of thinking of that as a focus area.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, while we're under suspension, motion to take paper 20-354 out of order.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I know we have Director Hunt on the call, so we were able to start through the CPA, this rental assistance program. It's up through ABCD Malden and Housing Families is providing some information as well. So I was hoping that Director Hunt might be able to provide a little bit more information.
[Zac Bears]: No, thanks, Alicia. I'm sorry for putting you on the spot. I know we had Roberta Cameron on earlier, but I think she had to hop off. So I really appreciate you taking that on.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I guess just, I wasn't here for all that legislative history. I guess my only question right now, and I might want to do some more research. And until I do that, I don't think I could vote for this. But when the council passed, the paper saying that we approve of the solicitor's opinion. Did that change the ordinance and the issues with the ordinance that we're having?
[Zac Bears]: Not really, I guess. So there's a clarification that the ordinance is wrong, but the incorrect language is still in the zoning ordinance. Is that basically where we are?
[Zac Bears]: Not at this time, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I agree with much of what Councilor Knight just said. I'd just like to propose a B paper that the city administration also report to us, have discussions with the Division of Local Services, the Department of Revenue, and report back to us. on any options for municipal bonds to cover operating expenses. I think in the case, so that's the motion. And then I have to just think in the case that the federal, you know, it's very possible that a federal bailout won't be forthcoming or it won't be timely. And I think we should explore all options to make sure that we don't have to make more cuts because as has been said many times, and as Councilor Knight just said, we haven't recovered from the last round of cuts.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I don't want to sound like a broken record, but You know, we're talking about a second great depression level of numbers. We're talking about unemployment numbers and economic numbers that we haven't seen in a hundred years. And I think looking at alternative revenue sources is important, but I think this overarching point that we really can't afford to cut any more. And the back end of that point is that there's actually going to be a higher demand for our services through this crisis and at the end of the crisis. You know, I really think we need to explore all options, alternative revenue sources, and really lean into this idea that it might be important for us to try to cover this deficit with bonding. I mean, it's a once in a century question. It's a once in a century question. And if the choice is cutting essential services that we'll never get back, I think we need to make that hard choice.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Yeah, and I mean it is it's scary I don't mean to say that we should just be doing this willy-nilly and doing it without planning that's not the point but it's It's having that backstop at the end of the day, because I agree there's a cost to future generations, but you have to do that cost-benefit analysis, right? Is the cost of losing 10, 20 city staff and maybe never getting them back more than the cost of a bond, and if we can minimize that. So just really exploring the options. And my hope is that we're, I like the Medford way. I like that we get out and do things first, as Councilor Knight was saying. My hope on something like this is that we are in lockstep with other communities in the state if we have to go this route. And really, you know, The fundamental question is that's not our role as municipal and state government But it's getting to the point of the question is the federal government going to abrogate its role Its role is to borrow to bail us out because it's the one that can do it If it's going to say we're not going to do that. We've got to look at another option because it's a hundred year crisis You know, I i'm it's scary and I completely hear what everyone's saying. So it's not just We can do whatever and fix the problem. It's having that backstop if if all of our other systems don't succeed to keep us in the place we need to be.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and just specifically, Municipal Bond Deficit Financing Authority or authorization.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilor Marks. I'm just looking at, we got some resolutions back from the mayor, and there's a letter from Brian Cairns in here regarding Maple Park. And it says, it talks a lot about the trash, but it says that we agree that residents at Maple Park can participate in the city's bulk pickup, the cost for bulk items for the new fiscal year is 22 per item. So I don't know if that means that they have done this already or not, but that's just what I, I just remembered reading that. This was in response to your 20-09-4.
[Zac Bears]: That's interesting. The clerk forwarded us, there was a ton of stuff in here, but there's a letter dated April 20th of this year from Brian Cairns. And the last sentence says, Also, do we agree that residents at Maple Park can participate in the city's bulk pickup? So I think maybe that needs to be communicated back to them.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I think just along that point as well, you know, it says in this letter from Brian Karen's, you know, there's a lot of talk about trash pickup, which they currently aren't part of the city's trash pickup. But I think we said that they are part of recycling. And in here, it says, also, currently, this location is not putting out anything for recycling, at least not for city pickup. So they may even be paying for recycling and the building might not even be using it. So that was just another interesting thing I saw in that letter.
[Zac Bears]: Come on down, let's talk trash.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Bears? I just want to add, you know, that Councilor, I mentioned the GoFundMe, we've seen incredible generosity from the Medford community over the past 24 hours to these families. So I just want to note that as well.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: It's on a separate, nevermind. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I know that some information has gone out from the city since I filed this resolution. But I do know that we have joined in regional compact, brought some masks in and we're distributing them. And I'm hoping that Chief of Staff Rodriguez could share what the plan is for that.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Dave. I appreciate that. Is this going to be the first of hopefully many or is this just as far as we've gotten in the planning right now?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just think this is a good story and a bad time of someone who's served the city for so long and has retired with such honor. So I would be happy though to defer to Council Dean Marks to start this off.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I just want to second that. I don't know, Lieutenant Endicott, but from everything I've heard and everything I've seen, He's just been a great service to the people of Medford. So I think it's important for us to highlight small positives in this time.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think we're all starting to process just the amount of people that we know that we're losing. And I don't think anything hits home more than the stories that are out today around the courtyard facility here in Medford. The projections are that we're losing 2,000 people a day across the country and hundreds of people a day in massachusetts and um, I think We just need to take every moment when we're together such as it is on zoom and and the other ways that we're communicating right now to really um, just to say talk about this to to mention and and uh honor and and Think about the folks who who we've lost and the families that are impacted. Um I don't think any of us have the answers as to what this means for us as a country to see so many people dying so fast. But I think we need to start the conversation just honoring and remembering these folks we've lost. And I'm hoping that going forward, we can think about the ways that we're going to remember the people who we're losing to this coronavirus crisis right now. I'm just hoping that my fellow Councilors will join with me in dedicating this meeting to, to the folks that we've lost in their families and hopefully going forward we can we can talk more about how we're going to, how we're going to work through this as a community. So, that's why I put this resolution forward. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Just on this courtyard thing too, you know, I've talked to some residents and seen some posts online. I think getting the timeline and also, you know, this big question around Genesis, you know, folks are posting online, you know, they made X billion dollars and they're asking us for donations and, you know, we need to protect the idea that It's insulting to say, oh, they were over 80, and then to also be making this money. So that's a question. That's not what this resolution was about, but just hearing from everybody, hearing from Vice President Caraviello, we need to do something on that, too. So I support Councilor Knight's B paper, and I hope we'll also revisit it in the future.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Councilor Marks. I'm definitely, well, looking forward to, might not be the right words, but the meeting on Thursday is an important meeting. and it's an important discussion to have. I think I support a letter to the federal delegation from this council and also the state delegation. I'm also wondering if, and whether we do it as two separate things or one thing, sending a joint resolution from both the school committee, the council and the mayor saying that we're all in agreement on this is our need as a city and sending that. I don't know, I'm happy to discuss that or hear what my other Councilors have to say about that. The main thing I wanted to say is, you know, in many of our departments, they haven't even recovered from 2008 recession and the budgets that were passed then. So we really need to put forward any and every alternative, whether it's advocacy for this federal money or working with the state and other municipalities to find a solution on this level. You know, right now we really are at the mercy of Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump when it comes to a state and local bailout. And I think Um, that could be, we all know that could potentially change in the next, uh, several months. Um, so I think if, if they choose to follow through on some of the more ridiculous things that they've suggested, like cities and states can go bankrupt. Um, I think we might need to work with the state level to find an alternative to get us through, uh, the next several months because, um, with, with public services, we're gonna need more public services after this crisis than we needed before. schools are going to have a bigger mental health crisis. We're going to have, we need people at the Board of Health. We need people in the DPW. So we really need to be, work as hard as we can and look at every possible option and alternative to make sure that we can get through this and maintain the services that our residents are going to need even more of on the other side of this crisis.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I completely agree with my colleagues that, and I hope we can do it on the stimulus requests and all of the budget areas that speaking with one voice is key. You know, I think actually we need to move beyond specific statements that were made. I agree, contentiousness is not where we need to be. I think what Councilor Knight said about looking at a different way to budget is actually what the comments, at least I was watching the meeting as well. And what I heard was actually a criticism of the school committee and their own internal actions similar to what you just said, Councilor Marks, and words may have been thrown around and we all know what happens when we're speaking off the cuff. So, I mean, I think we've all admitted before, not about the schools specifically, but in general, we want to be able to provide the services that the residents want. And I think what I heard, at least, is that maybe the school committee is reconsidering how they do their budget exactly to your point, Councilor Marks, to make a different request and change the process. And I'm hoping that, I don't think this budget year is going to be the year to do it, but I'd like to see in future budget years us saying, you know, from every single city department assessing all of our services and saying this is what we need. I think Councilor Knight made an exceptional point about, you know, what are our needs? What are our goals? What are our objectives? And are we achieving them every year? I think we really need to have that conversation. And then we need to be able to say, you know, this is the reason why we don't have X person at DPW. That's why this isn't getting done. So that's how I hope we can move forward. Obviously, this budget is not going to be the year for us to assess all of the needs that we have, because it doesn't seem like we're going to be able to meet many of them. But I hope that in future budgets that we can say, you know, this is what we need. This is what we're able to provide. And this is the difference because I think it's very important for all residents to know exactly where we are and exactly what we're doing to try to improve the services. So that's where I hope we'll go together. school committee Council and the mayor. Most important thing to me right now is that we all are together and send a resolution of support around federal federal and state support because, you know, just want to loop back to that we need the people that we have in city government to provide these services right now. So that's, that's my priority.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Bears. I'll get my word in edgewise and just say that I've been bulking up on my Medford history during this pandemic, so anything we can do to help. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I think one other thing that's on that website is that our final self-response rate in 2010 was 68%. So obviously, we want to get above that, given that all the people who don't do the self-response, someone comes to their door, and that's gonna be a whole other set of circumstances given what's going on. So a really big push is good. And I think also Chief of Staff Rodriguez, the communities you outlined and the difference in the response rates are pretty clear why that's happening, right? The richer neighborhoods and towns have a higher response rate. So I think a really important effort on reaching out to folks who we may not always reach is gonna be important.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And thanks for your answers, Dave.
[Zac Bears]: No, no worries. So two questions. Given that this was a, would this be the process that would be followed going forward? Is this the, would it be issuing, putting out to bid another contract in the future? Are you planning to do this differently?
[Zac Bears]: All right, and just one other question. I know you answered that this is doable. You think the team thinks this is doable given the COVID-19 impacts? I guess the only other kind of the side question to that is, are we planning on issuing bonds for any other emergency expenditures related to COVID-19 and would this impact the potential to issue those?
[Zac Bears]: So if there was an expense like needing computers for distance learning, that kind of thing, this would not crowd that out is what you're saying?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thanks, and I'm looking forward to that meeting too.
[Zac Bears]: What, as this is a contract that's been signed, what would be the impact if the vote were not to be in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. I wanna thank Vice President Caraviello and Councilor Marks for a great meeting. We were able to hear from residents on what they'd like the city to see the city do regarding housing stability. And we were also able to hear, I think, which was helpful, some of the great work that city officials, members of city boards and commissions and others were doing. So that was good. We agreed to keep the paper in committee and also request that the acting city solicitor write a draft ordinance for a housing stability task force. And we also are planning to hold another subcommittee meeting to discuss, hopefully, a draft ordinance as well as some of the actions that we could potentially support at the state level.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I mean, I think one thing that's clear is that if one person's wearing a mask and one person isn't, the effectiveness goes down significantly. But if both people in an interaction or in a space are wearing a mask, it significantly helps to reduce the transmission rate. I'm really glad that we're doing this in the businesses. But I agree with Eric, I think, you know, setting this as you know, we're never going to get everyone I think Councilor Garviela is right about that, you know, but if we can say as a city, this is what we should do. Set the example be the role model and say, you really need to be wearing a mask out. I think we should do that.
[Zac Bears]: I'm good, thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, I see John Costas.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just quickly to add to what my fellow councilors have said. I think I would just like to know, can we continue at the $500,000 level? You know, what is the impact relative to the, of the COVID-19 crisis on our finances and how does this fit into that picture?
[Zac Bears]: How does this fit into that conversation? Or what might we need to pare back from $500,000 to a smaller amount?
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Just, Dave, when discussions about this were happening, was there any discussion of whether we'll be able to do this given the coronavirus crisis and the impact on city finances?
[Zac Bears]: Just along the same note, maybe what we have in bonding capacity as well.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Roberta, Andre, Danielle, Tabitha, Jayna, everyone who's been working on this. I think this meets the early scope Of this crisis. I think the point of getting money out the door, um to try to help people who are in need right now is really well taken. Um I would be fine with if we wanted to do a half and half but um disbursement, but i'd really want to Make sure that if the need is greater than you know if we're running out in in a week or two weeks and not in a month that we can come back and discuss it sooner because just from the discussions that i've had and the calls that i've been getting, you know, i've talked to 30, 40 people who are having trouble. And if we're talking $1,000 to $2,000, that's 125 to 250 people. And I'm sure that I'm not speaking to nearly even a small chunk of the folks who are in need right now in our city. I really think this is a great effort. I'm really glad that you've all been working on this, and I really hope we can move it forward as quickly as possible because the need is there. And as a lot of the conversations around housing have been happening, you know, people were feeling okay for March and maybe okay for April, and now it's really, you know, we're getting into week six, week seven, week eight. The other side of it, too, is that the unemployment benefit systems have not been working quickly. And if you combine the calls that I'm getting and the work that I'm trying to do on that side with the people who are concerned about housing, it makes me to think that we're going to need to go beyond this, hopefully. And hopefully we can. And hopefully the federal and state government are there to help us with that. Because I don't think, even in Medford, we're going to have the resources to meet the need. So I just want to say thank you, and I strongly support this.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I think just along the same lines, hopefully, you know, it's trial by fire and it's not the circumstances you ever want to be doing this, but building that relationship with you now, you know, if we had had this relationship before, some of these, we'd have more understanding, we'd have some answers to the questions. I think it speaks to the need, we needed this before, we definitely need it now. And building those relationships and connections will help us all going forward. And again, I do hope it's not, as long as many of us think it is right now, but we gotta prepare for that.
[Zac Bears]: I think we lost her.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, there she is.
[Zac Bears]: I just, and this is more technical. I don't know if the clerk or Danielle could speak to it. Instead of, by doing it this way, it makes me think that the CPC is gonna have to vote again on another $125,000. Is that accurate or not?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, so essentially we're releasing half.
[Zac Bears]: Is that also 10,000 for the second
[Zac Bears]: Just want to extend my congratulations to Evelyn and Henry as well.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I was quickly schooled by the clerk that I do not have to put forward a resolution for if I'm the chair of the committee, but he thought it was going to be a light agenda.
[Zac Bears]: But I wanted to, it seems like folks have questions. I'd be happy for that to be committee of the whole instead of the subcommittee. It seems like that might be the better venue anyway. I don't want to put that out there. I just want to put that out there and be more than happy for that.
[Zac Bears]: at the end, after everyone else.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. And I think just something to tack on that we're going to need to have as part of these discussions. is working with the state delegation and maybe even the federal delegation to say this is what our need is. This is the impact of this crisis. This is the amount of money that we're looking at cutting. How much of this can we get through a federal stimulus package? And I think joining together with our state and federal folks on that is going to be important as well. We know some money has gone out. More money looks like it's going to go out. So having that conversation and being able to say, you know, we're gonna need something there too, and get as much as we can, because I think when we're talking about the fears that we're all having, I don't think anyone's prepared to make the kind of cuts that, and the numbers that have just been thrown out here, and feel in any way okay with it, so.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I, um, I didn't get to know Joe very well. Um, I was three years old when he stopped serving as a city clerk, but we were really lucky to get in one of our first meetings, some materials delivered, I think, through Chris Donovan from Joe McGonigal, History of the Lawrence Light Guard, which I know that he was an avid, very knowledgeable about as well. So while I didn't get to know him very personally at all, but it's been really good to have some connection and I know just send condolences to his family.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I strongly support both papers. Thank you to all of the previous councilors who just spoke. Really support the mitigation agreement and B paper presented by Councilor Knight. I just want to draw attention to a larger question. We call them public utilities, but the fact is that they have been privatized and deregulated over the past several decades. We call them public utilities. They're trying not to spend the money to keep our roads safe. They make significant profits. National Grid made $4 billion in profit last year. Comcast made $41 billion in profit last year. I think they can afford to fix our roads.
[Zac Bears]: Getting some feedback.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we're losing you.
[Zac Bears]: We need to get that Councilor net a Wi-Fi booster or something. So, and I say that because I agree with him on this one. So, you know, I think, Tim, I want to first say thank you. I think you are moving us in the right direction. And to me, there's kind of two issues here. There's capital asset management, and it seems like we're getting our house in order around that. But then there's this question of quality of life. And it seems, you know, you said you're amenable to some sort of mitigation because I think you know, we want to get everything done. We want to get everything in order, but I think the points about machines being stored on the street and roads being, you know, or parking being restricted for weeks at a time, it is a balancing act, as the other Councilors have said. So, um, you know, it sounds like at this point in the conversation, we, um, should work on a mitigation type approach and put that into ordinance. Um, but you know, what, either what clarity, I guess two questions, what, what have you been doing on the quality of life side of this problem? And then, and what clarity would be helpful from us on that? The quality of life as in storage of equipment and yeah, just general use of the road use of parking, you know, I mean, If there's, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. So it kind of just gives me two more questions. I don't want to belabor the point that much. It seems like there's not, there's not a general guideline of like we would like to limit, you know, the disruption to a certain period of time like a week or two weeks. Are you following some sort of guideline or is it really just all based on the project, case by case, it's usually case by case we don't want to.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And then one other question. Are you able to give any information to officers, police officers who might be on a detail do you share information on this project, kind of trying to provide some of that information so they know what's right and what's wrong?
[Zac Bears]: All right. Thanks, Tim. And yeah, and I would just add that I definitely support Councilor Mark's both on the conversation about the budget and make sure we have the resources for enforcement and also talking about neighborhood mitigation, quality of life, other ordinance work in the public works subcommittee.
[Zac Bears]: Second, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: I have it, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Be it resolved, the Medford City Council requests the city administration establish a policy requiring all street opening permits to be accompanied by a neighborhood mitigation agreement that will adequately and reasonably offset the negative impacts on the quality of life caused during street opening construction in city neighborhoods.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I spoke to the mayor's chief of staff, Dave Rodriguez, today. He's not able to be here. I'm just going to read from, this is mostly an informative measure, just so that folks know that this has happened. Last week, the mayor took an executive action that has extended the due date for real estate and personal property tax bills from May 1st to June 1st. The due date to apply for tax exemptions has also been extended to June 1st. The due date for paying water bills remains May 1st. However, the city will waive fees or interest accrued for late payments as long as they're made on or before June 30th. So that is the update. Chief of Staff Rodriguez said that he'd be happy to provide a written update if any Councilors wanted anything in addition to what was put out in the release. This is mostly just for any resident who may not have caught this online, that those deadlines have been adjusted given the circumstances.
[Zac Bears]: Well, first, I'm glad I made such a fuss at the last meeting. I had the record, so I'm glad for that. But I found the records to be absolutely unblemished, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: John, we lost you, John.
[Zac Bears]: You froze for a second.
[Zac Bears]: Only if you want to. It's going to be riveting.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Knight.
[Zac Bears]: I'm thinking the same thing.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I think everything Councilor Morales said is spot on. And I just want to add a couple of things. One, which is that the folks who have been leading this fight, many of them are public employees themselves, the people whose retirement funds we're talking about here. I know many of the large major public employee unions in the state support this bill. We got a letter from the political director of Service Employees International Union, SEIU Local 509 today. So You know, I think workers want to see their retirement invested prudently, and I think there's no actually better evidence of that. I think this would have been good at any time, but what we've seen with the market over the past few weeks, and also combine that with a massive oil price war that has deeply dropped the price of oil and devalued stocks, this would not be the time for retirement funds to be buying into the fossil fuel industry anyway. So I think we've seen a great evidence of the volatility. that's happening now and that's only going to get worse as our global energy system is disrupted by the fact that we can't use fossil fuels for much longer if we want to keep the planet healthy.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I think, There are definitely people on this call as well who can speak more to this than I can. But what the bill does is essentially there's different categories that to my understanding and other people can describe it better of what different things you can factor into investment decisions. This would authorize the retirement board to consider this as a factor in decisions that they make. So it's not saying Right now they're not authorized to do that. They're like specifically what you said They're not authorized to say we don't want to invest in fossil fuel companies This would allow them to make that decision if they wanted to And it's just allowing the ledge asking the legislature to pass a bill to grant that authority to municipal retirement boards So we wouldn't be making this decision It would just say that the retirement board could make the decision in the future if they wanted to or any Any of those boards across the state? Thank you
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Talk right into it.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, I move to withdraw this paper.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just wanted to second what everyone else has said and just add that missing coffee is a great meeting place. And I'm hoping that when all of this is over, it's going to be a place where I can sit down and talk to Medford residents again soon.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'd like to move to suspend the rules to take paper 20-309 out of order. On the motion of
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, and I think everything Councilor Morell just said is correct. And I do understand now City Hall is closed to staff and employees as well. So, you know, if we were to move ahead on this, understand the ability of city staff to participate in this while the building is closed, you know, want to be think we can be cognizant of that and I think it's a great opportunity for the mayor's office and the council to collaborate, get something out with both of our messages on it so that they can see all of city government working for them and providing the information that they need in this time.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I completely hear you on that council vice president Kirby yellow. Um, and I think we were hoping to focus on some of the things that might be more Certain like these are the locations for food service pantries. This is the options for some housing You can call if you're having an issue with housing. So I hear you. Um, I understand that people are stretched in So I think you're working along a timeline and including information that that we know isn't going to change quickly is is important. Um, I just think we should we should do our do everything we can to get information out to everybody because this is a time we need everybody to be in the loop.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think that the phrase physically delivered was, It did not mean getting people out on the streets, putting it in mailboxes. And I understand that that could be interpreted that way. And that was not the intent of it. It would be mail, not having people out on the streets, touching mailboxes. So I completely agree with you on that. And I think to Councilor Marks' point, that is the intent of this, whether it's a one-pager. It could be a one-page document, but it's a PDF online, not something out in physical form, if necessary. I think the intent of saying mail was just that there's there are people who aren't online, people who aren't on TV and all of that, and I understand the concerns.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no, and that was not what my intent was. I more meant people who aren't on TV or internet, but might get a piece in the mail and see that.
[Zac Bears]: I'm happy to propose an amendment to that effect if that clarification is helpful. That'd be helpful. and striking to create a one-page coronavirus information sheet that can be physically delivered, and adding to create a coronavirus information sheet that can be delivered. Or is that still too specific?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. So I have I think the text is pretty explanatory at face value. But the idea here would be to work with the city administration to get a group together of people who are working on different housing issues I know that chairperson Cameron has been working on some stuff with CPA, the acting chair LaRue of Community Development Board has been working on some stuff around Community Development Board. Um as well as many other people alicia hunt and others. Um, the idea would be to bring those folks together make sure that we are are That everyone is aligned. Um, and that we're moving forward together. Everyone knows what each other's doing. Um, And then also, uh to create a hotline so have it on the city website This is where you can call if you're looking for information or assistance. Um, and then you know, there's a variety of things that we could work on through that, including entry to units, um, eviction and utility shutoffs, which I know the mayor has an executive order on, or that the, there has been an action on some of that. Um, and then especially providing resources regarding mortgage, um, and other assistance that's available from the state and federal level. I've spoken with the mayor, Director Hunt, Acting Director Hunt from Community Development, as well as some other folks regarding this, and it seems like there's willingness to do this. So I'm going to be trying to coordinate some of that with folks. I think it would be great to I'm just trying to pitch in my help and labor and try to take some of that pressure off that some of my fellow Councilors have mentioned. People are very stretched in right now. And I think the mayor welcomed that. So I'm hoping that we can endorse that approach as well. And as folks have said, continue moving with one message on this.
[Zac Bears]: and I think to Vice President Caraviello's point, when I was thinking of what was in 299, this is the kind of thing I was thinking of wanting to include in something like that. So providing, you know, this is where you can find housing resources from the city and have, you know, that be on the website, but have some of that information there, food resources, kind of all of the different ways the city is helping residents right now. So that was what I had in mind. So I would 100% support what you just said.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. This one's just mine, but yes.
[Zac Bears]: Consulate bears. Yeah, I think to that point, um, I would think that we would develop something to be sent out after we kind of went through this process of getting people together. I think you're right. We have to get everyone together. See what everyone's doing and then put something out so that that would be how I would like to work with the administration to approach it. Um I think some of what would be included is in this third paragraph of the resolution. Things like that document hasn't been created yet. We haven't had those conversations. So I think we would put something out after these folks got together to have those conversations.
[Zac Bears]: I think on general principle, I don't disagree with you, Councilor Marks. On this specific issue, again, I spoke with the mayor and some other folks. They would see if we, I'm volunteering my personal time to help with this as a councilor as well. So they see it as taking something off their plate and helping to bring these things together. While the city staff has stretched in specifically on this issue, I don't disagree that I think we should do a lot more as a council and take more ownership. But on this issue at this time, I think to the point that some other Councilors have made, we need to speak with one voice, have that work. And I've spoken with the administration and they see this as a chance to both collaborate, get the message out and actually try to take some work off the plate of staff who are stretched right now.
[Zac Bears]: I would be happy to send it for discussion at a committee meeting subcommittee meeting if we could try to schedule it for next week. I think that would be good.
[Zac Bears]: Well, there we go. My first one in a trial by fire.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, I don't think a rent freeze is mentioned in here. I think to your point exactly, we can't do that. And I tried as hard as possible last week to say it as many times as possible that that's not what we were doing. I've gotten a lot of messages, again, from landlords, tenants, and homeowners who are all really nervous about making payments. So I hear you on that. I've heard from many people. I think we heard some on the call. So the idea here, I think, is not to say I think it's important for us to look at one piece of the puzzle and say, No, you know, it's not just about about rampant saying that we're providing resources sharing the information that's out there. And I agree. I think tenants and landlords are coming to agreements. I think that's the most important thing we have to do. And I think any way that the city can. Help provide information that facilitates those agreements or can make sure that landlords and tenants are all in stay in our homes, keep up rent payments, because I think there's the concern, too, right? I mean, the logistics of trying to do something like that in three months, you would have to pay all your rent, too. So I don't think people can afford a balloon payment either. So I completely hear you on that. That's not the aim of this. It's to make sure everyone has as much information as possible so that they can come to agreements so that everyone can weather this together.
[Zac Bears]: I'm sorry. I withdrew that resolution for that reason. I tried to amend it last week to remove that as well. I withdrew 20-293. We are looking at 20-300.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and John, I hear you on that too. I've been following some of the state level legislation on this. It hasn't been either hasn't been filed or the right things haven't been filed yet, but I'm hoping that we can have future meetings talk about help for the small businesses on that issue as well, because it's a huge issue.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'm fine referring this to elder and housing affairs. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: So I'm asking the city administration to amend it. I don't think we can amend an executive order, my understanding of how that works. So I would change it. I would amend it just to say be it resolved instead of be it ordered. But yeah, so the mayor's 331 executive order, which I think in general is a good thing to say that you know, if you're living in an apartment, you can't have people come into that apartment and show it. I think that's generally a good thing, but the mayor's order doesn't make clear that if a unit is unoccupied, it can be shown, at least from my reading of it. So I would like it to be amended. I know I've spoken to some folks from real estate industry who have said that it's important to them. I know Kelly's here and can talk about that as well, but that's just why I put this forward.
[Zac Bears]: I did. They said they would look into it.
[Zac Bears]: I know that some realtors are concerned, they feel that it does ban it.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I brought it up last week and nothing has been changed. No order has been made to change it.
[Zac Bears]: I would second that motion.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you again, Mr. President. So I've included in the packet for councilors, the order that the city of Somerville put forward on this matter. Last week, we sent a resolution supporting a statewide bill on this matter. However, there's also local action that we believe we can take. I've forwarded this to the administration, and I would appreciate if the council would support as well, asking the administration to implement such an order. I think it speaks also to Mr. Costa's point about, you know, our commercial as well.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, I can repeat. I'll try to repeat. I don't know if I'll get it verbatim. So last week, we passed a resolution asking for the state to take action on eviction and foreclosure moratorium. I've included in the packet that there's local action we can take. Our neighbors in Somerville, their board of health and mayor issued a a local level residential and commercial eviction and foreclosure moratorium. I forwarded that to the mayor's office asking them to consider a similar order here. And I would ask that my fellow Councilors also join that we ask the mayor's office to consider such an order as well.
[Zac Bears]: uh, it I point of information I can answer uh, no, um It that's uh, why the legislature is planning to take action and also why somerville did that the governor's orders were more Well, we're not somerville. So I don't really care what somerville did So we're making so I think it's a smart thing for i'm just saying that they took an action They they found the uh approach that they can do under local law and I think that we should also do that see this is where the confusion comes from because we're
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I, I hear you. I think this is a massive emergency. I'm getting a lot of people asking.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information, I think Mr. Costas just said that they're concerned about commercial as well. So I think this is a crisis.
[Zac Bears]: Last week, the issue was that there was too much in one resolution. So I'm just trying to meet people where they are.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I mean, I'm not, it's not a cookie cutter approach. I'm not saying, you know, essentially, I don't disagree with you on the larger coronavirus question and then our plan and our discussions. I agree it's a massive public health emergency and an economic emergency and we need to address it. the intent of these resolutions and the ones I brought last week are to make sure that we are clear that we have a message on housing. This is the city's message on housing to work with the mayor's office on this, to make sure we have clarification of executive orders go out so that we don't have confusion. That's the intent of all of this. And I think as Medford, you know, there's going to be a lot of impacts of this public health emergency. One of them is going to be severe impacts on housing. We're already seeing that. I think we've heard that housing and also real estate in general for commercial as well. We've heard that voiced. I proposed these resolutions, and I think we need to take action because housing is a local and a state issue, and it's going to present a big problem if in three weeks we don't have that clear message, we don't have a fact sheet, we don't have the information online, we haven't had the conversations. So that's why I put this forward. I would be happy if the mayor thought a different approach was fine. This is us saying we need to do something on this issue at the city level. to withdraw or send it to committee for more discussion.
[Zac Bears]: I would be happy to move to send this also either attach it to 20-300 and send it to that subcommittee separately.
[Zac Bears]: Not really.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just that I am, you know, two things just very quickly, you know, we are in an emergency and in an emergency, government takes fast and quick action. And usually it happens through the executive. And I think as a legislative branch, we want to try to balance that as much as possible and be part of that process. We don't want an emergency to mean that we are cut out of things. So that's, that's just another treatise on government for this call. But, you know, just specifically, I think I had a motion on the floor to refer this to subcommittee and I would try to move. I think I have a second as well from Councilor Knight. So I would like to move that.
[Zac Bears]: Withdrawn.
[Zac Bears]: So again, you know, this was part of the larger package of resolutions on housing. This would just be a request that there's been a temporary fund set up by the of Housing and Community Development at the state level to provide housing assistance for folks who are having difficulties, obviously, you know, with 40% of the population having already lost hours and wages. That's a lot of people. I'm happy to send this to subcommittee as well, but I think it's pretty self-explanatory just asking that an increased contribution be made. The initial contribution was only $5 million, and that's not going to be sufficient. I'm happy to hear from other Councilors first.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I have spoken to members of the state delegation on this. It's a way for us to let people know that this fund exists, folks who might be watching the meeting. And I think it's important for us as a body to say that the state action is in the interest of our residents here in Medford. I don't disagree that calling them up and talking to our state delegation is important. I completely agree with that. And as Kelly said, we need the state to take action, but that state action is going to affect us. And I think we should at least be able to say that what we feel about state action. I think we probably would like more rental assistance for people who are in need. And again, I'm getting emails and phone calls every day. I agree. Also, Kelly just commented, can't the new housing assistance group get that word out? Yes. It doesn't exist yet. So I'm using the vehicles that we have now. In a week, maybe we'll have new ones.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, if I can. Yeah, yes, that's my plan. And after seeing this conversation, how it went, I think that we should have the discussion subcommittee and say these are all the state legislation we support do it as one thing if we want to do that at all, because that's what those last three Yeah, so so again, I'm we're working through this. I'm three months into being a Councilor and we're in a massive public health crisis and economic pandemic crisis. So, you know, I'm just hearing concerns and trying to do whatever I can and work with everyone to get the message out there.
[Zac Bears]: All set, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Um, um, I, Councilor Knight just got me thinking and whether it's a B paper, I'm not sure. But, um, Would it be possible for the Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee to hold a meeting to talk about what Councilor Knight just talked about as well? Because I do think it's important that we understand the impact of what's going on at the state level on funding on the city.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just the local aid and all the stuff that Councilor Knight just more eloquently discussed.
[Zac Bears]: I'll talk to Councilor Nayton offline, and I'm going to step on his toes.
[Zac Bears]: Do you think, my man?
[Zac Bears]: Just super quick. What, where is this going next after the subcommittee meeting?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to adopt the committee report, Mr. President. Second, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to table.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Motion to adjourn, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, right.
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely. Thanks for having me on, and thanks for putting these together, Hannah. It's a complicated question. There's just so much, so many moving parts, so much is moving so quickly. I think obviously a lot of the policy has focused on public health. Um, you know, that that's the utmost order right now. So we've been, you know, we, we closed schools before the statewide order. We had started implementing some of the business stuff before the statewide order. So I think, no, it was three weeks ago. It feels like three months ago. We, we had really, um, you know, it's an interesting time. We have a mayor who came in in January. So, um, you know, that's, That's a really big challenge for a new mayor to face something like the coronavirus And I think our mayor's done a good job really good job. Um and got out ahead a lot of a lot of the Statewide orders. I mean obviously if we started two weeks earlier we'd be in a very different position, but we weren't getting um that information From anyone, you know at the federal or the state level that guidance wasn't there when it needed to be there So in the absence of that, I think we've done um a really impressive job and I think to uh businesses and residents and volunteers and you know just local people have really stepped up um and supported each other and shown solidarity you know I think we're living solidarity right now and we're also living the crisis of our economic and social order right now and people might not be calling it the things that we some of us may call it um but I think it's a That's actually really important. So just in that general public health, stay at home, keep things closed. I think we got out a little earlier than some folks, and I think that's been good. And I think we've also just had really good communication. So in terms of emergency orders at the state or city level, if people have questions or they're interested, if you go to medfordma.org or medford-ma.gov, there's a really good page on coronavirus and also some really good stuff on food. and other issues as well. So that's a general summary. I could talk specifically about some policy, but I want to give you a chance to guide the conversation.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. So really at this moment, You know, we can call it social distancing, physical distancing, what it is in practice, and this is something, again, three months ago, a.k.a. three weeks ago, sharing out. Nobody knows what social distancing is. It's a new word for people, so that makes it really hard for some people, and also then translate that into other languages, and suddenly you have a huge kind of information breakdown, right? So what it really means is you need to stay at home if possible and avoid contact with other people like that's really what it is You want to know who you're in touch with? Um six feet has been the guidance I saw some science the other day that maybe even farther than six feet would be preferable. Um for a lot of uh of interactions physical distancing, um But it's important because we're breaking the chain of transmission of the of the virus right now. Um, so We've seen some effect of that. We don't have enough testing to know how well everything is working or how sick the people around us are. So that just adds to that need to just pause, isolate, self-isolate. And, you know, ideally, you know, I'm with my parents. Um, so we are in the same household, but we don't necessarily sit close to each other on the couch even. Um, so, uh, that kind of, uh, distancing I think is how we're gonna break the chain because we can't do, I think Dr. Fauci said it right. What we're doing right now is mitigation and that's not where we wanna be. We wanna be in the tracing and containment. It's so bad that we can't do that. So we all need to take actions in absence of the ability to actually track who's sick and who isn't. And this asymptomatic, especially asymptomatic among people like my age, like 25 to 20 to 40, that's another huge spreader as well. So if you're young, especially stay at home. Hopefully you're with roommates that you like and you can make it through. But you know, that's, it's really essential. I'm seeing someone right now. We live 10 minutes away from each other. We have not seen each other in three and a half weeks. So even making sacrifices like that is really important. You know, even if you think you're, you're safe. We don't have the information, we don't have the testing, so we really need to, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I'm in a headphone right now, so I don't know if that's me.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know if Caroline is, so.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so I mean my personal... thing that I found I was doing my back of the napkin we're gonna have this many cases on this day and you know based on doubling every day and for the first couple weeks we were ahead of that now we're behind that that's just my calculation I'm not a scientist that's just what I'm doing to make myself feel a little more comfortable I mean I If they hold, we need multiple polls, we need a polling average, right? But, you know, that Boston Globe poll that 90 plus, 94 plus percent of people think this is incredibly serious, they're taking it seriously in Massachusetts was really good. And I think, too, just the, you know, we haven't seen here what we've seen in New York over the past couple weeks as well. So I think it shows that Getting out a little bit ahead of everything has helped us here. We're certainly not out of the woods. We can't stop We're probably you know, if we do this for another month, maybe then we'll be able to assess but I Mean the other good thing is that you know The stimulus package wasn't what we wanted it to be but it was a lot better than 2008 and as things get worse I studied economics when I went to school and I actually worked as an economist for the Department of Labor and You know, it doesn't mean I know what's going to happen. This is unprecedented. But, you know, the next step will need to be another stimulus. It will need to be more focused on regular people. I think there's going to eventually come to this conclusion that Um, you know, we're gonna have to do direct income support or do a payment kind of hold and for me I mean we've never seen something like this before we're like having the great depression in world war ii in three months, which is a very It means it's nuts for the economy. Um, but you know if we could eventually get to a place where we say wherever we were on march 1st that's where you're gonna be on july 1st and just say That's actually an even better system than trying to prop everything up through income support. It's just saying, we're just going to live in our houses for four months. If you have a landlord, the landlord's not going to pay out stuff for four months. You're not going to pay them for four months. It really starts to think about, instead of crashing the economy, freezing the economy. I think either way, because of the depth and scope and speed of the crisis, there has been more of a focus on working people than in the past. Obviously not everyone, obviously not our undocumented neighbors. So for people who are left out, there are funds that I really think you should look into to support people.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, I think we're getting a little bit more there on the direct payments just in terms of we're all getting $1,200. It's not enough. So there's a system in place, and we are receiving something. So there's some form of direct payment. And what Senator Sanders was able to do around the 1099 tipped and gig employees and getting them into unemployment, and then also having that extra $600 a week on top of standard benefits, as well as the extension from six months to nine months of how long you can be on. So that's kind of where we are now. Those are some of the new income supports that we've created. They're not going to be sufficient. So I think we're going to have to come back and say, what's a regular payment schedule and just instead of just saying you get $1,200 one time. So really thinking about at least for some period of time essentially a basic income, right. for everybody. And then I would love to see jobs programs at the federal level if we can get to a point where the economy isn't strong, but we are healthy enough for us to do something like that to try to finally rebuild a lot of our broken country and pay people good wages and make sure they have union jobs to do that. I think the payment stuff is something that's a little more in our scope of control at the state level, especially around housing. So I know that there's kind of many different ideas out there right now.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, the freezing of the economy. You know, there is something I think called rentfreeze.org. I'm going to type that into my browser really quick just to make sure that I'm not lying to you, and I'm not. Rentfreeze.org is a website. Representative State Rep Mike Connolly, Somerville, Cambridge, has been working a lot on housing-related legislation. Just last night, the Medford City Council supported HD 4935, which is the eviction and foreclosure moratorium bill that he's filed. And now he's also drafting legislation. He's actually drafting it publicly at rentfreeze.org. So he hasn't filed it yet. He's trying to get input and suggestions and thoughts before he files it. So if you have them, go put those in. And I think that's because we can't gather right now. We can't come together at the state house and say, this is what we want. that would do a rent freeze and kind of There's a lot of things we talk about. I think the idea that we're talking about is essentially what some people call cancellation, which is just More for both mortgages and for rent We're taking these few months off. It's not going to accrue interest You don't have to pay a balloon payment at the end of a pandemic to your landlord, right? um, so That's really what we're thinking, but it's not you know tenants don't pay and everyone else is in that landlords and property owners are kind of in trouble from that. We really need everybody. That's what I've been trying to say is this is all hands on deck and we're trying to help everyone. And that seems to be the intent of what's going on with definitely the progressive housing legislation here in Massachusetts.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, so for housing, we're just kind of trying to pull everything together. I think something that communities to look into is if you have Community Preservation Act, CPA, you may have some funding that's for affordable housing, and that is allowed to be used for rental assistance, or at least we think it is. So we're looking into that right now. We're not as well resourced as some of our neighbors in Somerville. So, you know, they have a whole housing stability office. We're at least trying to get a housing stability hotline up for Medford residents that has the state and federal resources and then hopefully city resources. And then our food security task force has been doing a fantastic job. They have existed You know, we have a very serious food security problem in Medford We're one of the top cities in the state in terms of people who don't have access to food. Um, so We have been over the past several years a group of residents sarah mcgiburn and others have really been doing a great job along with the You know people at city hall our city staff, um, and they have stepped up unbelievably, uh during this crisis we have I think We have grab and go for seniors and children and families now where we've actually expanded that so much that I think, you know, it's not just necessarily focused on, we might not have enough for everybody who comes so there's a lot of locations around the city for grab and go lunch pickups and I think breakfast pickups as well. From this food security task force and our interfaith clergy who have been putting together micro pantries around the city so basically almost small boxes and different places that are just come, come and grab food that Sarah bring food if you can.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. One other really quick thing, Anna, if I can, is just that we've had volunteers also calling our seniors. So that's been just checking in, seeing if they need anything. That's been a great thing that we've been able to do. We have some ward captains that are kind of sometimes linked into the mamas, and there's just a lot of interconnected networks of people helping each other. So that's been, and the city's been kind of lifting that up as much as possible.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just stay strong. If you need help, reach out. People are here everywhere around you. Medford, again, if you're in Medford, there's a lot of resources on our city website, including all the different kinds of help, and especially if you're in crisis or you're struggling and you just need someone to speak to and kind of work through that. There's some connections to some resources on that as well.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. It's medfordma.org or medford-ma.gov. They bring you to the same place.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Anna.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. Adam, we're having some trouble hearing you.
[Zac Bears]: We can still hear you.
[Zac Bears]: I don't see any.
[Zac Bears]: I won't belabor the points. I think my colleagues have said most of what I wanted to say, but I think, you know, I agree that, you know, six months may not be the time frame right now, given everything that's going on, and so I would not support the moratorium, and I certainly don't support the complete ban on something like this. And I just think this would prevent the development that we actually want to come here, which is small development and people developing, you know, their own homes and for, you know, their land for their family, or, you know, really small development for people who live here, not big development. So I think we should reject it.
[Zac Bears]: So it would be a motion to accept the CD recommendation to reject the zoning amendment.
[Zac Bears]: He's muted. We have to unmute him again.
[Zac Bears]: I apologize, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think something open later is good for Medford in terms of 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. If the majority of the council supports 1 a.m., I think that's, I'm happy to vote for that. And I also just wanna say that I know this is a really hard time and I hope for you and all of our businesses in Medford the best and we'll make it through this. And I also hope that in a few months we'll be able to come down and have a party together and support you after this is all over. So thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Move approval, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, I'd like to make a motion to suspend the rules to take paper 2282 from unfinished business.
[Zac Bears]: I just would like to move approval.
[Zac Bears]: what this resolution would do would be to ban face surveillance in Medford. However, similar to the last resolution, we filed this ordinance prior to the stay at home orders and the cancellation of our meeting. So that's why it's appearing on this agenda. There's many people who have expressed their support for it. But there's also a lot of people in city departments and employees who have a lot on their plate with the emergency response right now. And we don't want to have this discussion without them. So I move that we would refer this item to the Public Safety Subcommittee for discussion with the police and other city departments after the COVID-19 emergency is lifted.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. First off, I just wanted to thank all of our city employees and residents who've been stepping up and doing so much to support our neighbors during this time, the food security, reaching out and protecting seniors, making sure they're okay. I was lucky to, unlucky and lucky, to speak to a couple who was planning to have their wedding here in Medford. They had to cancel that wedding, but they were able to donate over $1,000 in food to help Medford as well. So that's just been really good to see. One of the major issues we're facing is housing and housing stability. And I know that people from every city department have been working on this. And I hope you know that we can support that work. You know, there's been a lot of moving pieces. So I am going to propose significant amendments in a second. But before I do that, I just want to remind everyone that regardless of what we do on this resolution or on the following resolution, which would be about city action, that tomorrow is April 1st. And if you're writing about this or you're watching or you're planning to talk about this with folks, if your rent's due on April 1st, your rent is due on April 1st tomorrow, no matter what we do tonight, we don't have the power to address that. Unless you have come to an arrangement with your landlord, that's where we are. But I also think that You know, I went to school for economics. I actually was an economist for the Department of Labor. And I just, looking at these, this is gonna be really bad. We have no idea what this is gonna look like. Having millions of people file for unemployment in one week is absolutely unprecedented. And we truly don't know how long this emergency is going to last either. So what this resolution would do, and there are amendments in a second, ask for a coordinated statewide action on the housing crisis. And that's what this resolution is about. There's a typo that includes the city of Medford in this resolution. That's not supposed to be there. This is just supposed to be about the state. So I'm now going to send an email to the clerk and to my fellow Councilors with amended language. And then I will also read the amendment, Mr. President, if that seems like the right approach.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, correct.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. So the first amendment is in the second paragraph, striking the words and the city of Medford. So just requesting that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts use available authority and adding after the word foreclosures, including both residential and commercial properties. Then my amendment would add a third paragraph. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council requests that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ensure that any housing stability legislation protects nonprofit housing providers focused on lower income tenants from any loss of revenue due to the COVID-19 pandemic or any legislation passed regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. Adds a paragraph after that. be it further resolved that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts significantly increase the contribution to the COVID-19 rental assistance for families in transition, or RAFT, to reflect the scope of the economic crisis caused by COVID-19. This can be done using funds from the Commonwealth Stabilization Fund and recent federal stimulus legislation. So those are the amendments. I have forwarded them to the councilors and to the clerk.
[Zac Bears]: I would be happy to, if necessary, table it to next week. What House Docket 4935 does is provide a statewide moratorium on evictions and foreclosures. I do not think we should refer this to a subcommittee as this is an emergency matter and it requires urgent action.
[Zac Bears]: Correct. And if we don't participate now, we will not have the ability to ask the legislature to take that action.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information. I do have that in the local resolution for Medford in 293.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you a point of information There have been some some measures taken they're not They're not uniform. Uh, the point of the legislation is to clarify the various emergency executive orders and make it clear This is the policy everywhere in the state. Um because Basically the courts are closed so things can't move but that doesn't mean um that processes couldn't be initiated or There's some holes in the executive orders that the legislation is designed to clean up. Um so That that's that's just the intent of the legislation. I've also just forwarded everyone a copy of the legislation Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information, Mr. President, I just, and thank you, Kelly. I just want to be really clear that this resolution, the city would not be adding any restrictions. This is a resolution asking the state house to take action. So this would not create a separate rule here in Medford around these issues. It would ask the state legislature to create a statewide policy. So the state house and state Senate. So I just want to be very clear that even if this passes, We do not have different rules here. You have to pay your rent tomorrow if it's due tomorrow. I just I really want to avoid any lack of clarity on that just because it could be a problem. As you say, Kelly, we need to make sure that until until there are changes that are statewide and clear. We don't want people thinking they have something that they don't have. And also, I just want to add that the resolution includes mortgages as well. So statewide around both mortgages and rent, the intention is to help everybody. I think everybody's struggling right now. And as you just said, the federal guidelines are only protecting the FHA loans and not all of the people who don't have those. So I hear you. That's what this is about. And it's definitely not about Medford doing anything on its own separate from the rules around the statewide rules around rent and mortgage. That's not what this resolution would do.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Quick point of information, Mr. President. Um, I don't disagree with you at all, John. Oh, Mr. President, I had a point of information.
[Zac Bears]: just John, I don't disagree with you at all. I just think can we talk about that when we talk about 20-293, which is about what the city can do. I just don't want to conflate those two things because I think it's really important. Again, nothing in this that we're putting up right now is on the city. It's about us asking the state to take action. And then I think when that paper comes up, I don't disagree with you at all, John. I just don't want to, I don't want anyone watching or anyone writing or anyone who talks about this to, to confuse the two and give people an understanding that's incorrect about what the city has done tonight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to add, again, this would be mortgage payments as well. So this is to try to help homeowners as well. If you're watching, this is to try to help all of us. Everyone in every situation is facing a housing crisis. Should have had my parents come on and talk about their mortgage.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just um, I hear you on that. Uh, the way that the process has been working is this legislation is out there and then Also speaker de leo and president spilk. I've said we're going to do something Um, it may or may not just be the legislation Uh, so that's why there's other elements included in there to try to influence the full scope of debate and discussion That's going on around the issue. I would be happy to strike everything except the supporting H4935 and for tabling that portion or amending it to remove that and refiling that for another meeting so that we can at least get on the record supporting H4935, which I think is very important.
[Zac Bears]: I would do that. Did you do it, or was that a motion, or was that just? I can't make that motion until, since your motion's already on the floor, but I would make that motion.
[Zac Bears]: Then I move to amend to that effect. So you'd be stretching the second, third paragraph in all amendments? Yes.
[Zac Bears]: move to amend the language to remove paragraph two and three and to remove all of my amendments made prior to this, and also to remove Councilor Morell's amendment because it's no longer, that text is no longer.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think we can include that. I'm also happy removing it if the clerk would take action to the same effect.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to add that, you know, this is really the time to do it. You know, we've been doing a lot of cleaning and having PP for everybody, but the latest studies show that, you know, we haven't tested enough and we don't know everybody who has this. And we just need to be extra careful to protect everybody, especially now as a here in Massachusetts and across other states, you know, this month we will see a significant increase in cases. So I think that's very important.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. So again, this is a moving piece. The intention of this resolution is to address what the city can do to to get out as much as possible ahead of the impending housing and economic crisis. I've spoken to a lot of folks over the past several days since filing this resolution. I know that the city is already looking into and taking some steps to assist residents, whether they're homeowners or landlords or tenants, with information about housing stability. The mayor, the Office of Community Development, members of city boards and commissions, and some other residents are working on this. And I also want to especially thank the mayor for the executive order signed today that acts on the issue of showing housing units. So, you know, I have amendments again here. I understand some of the difficulty. I'm going to again forward those amendments to my fellow Councilors and also read them. I'm also forwarding them to the clerk. So the amendments would be, and again, I just want to implore everybody you, this is not stopping rent or mortgage payments for anybody in Medford. All people are going to have to keep to that existing payment schedule unless they've come to an agreement with their landlord or their mortgage lender. So I just, I want to say that again, um, very clearly. Um, so, uh, the amendments would be, uh, in the first paragraph, striking everything in the first paragraph, uh, after the words city administration and, uh, changing that, adding in, uh, amendment basically changing the first paragraph to be ordered by the Medford City Council that the city administration amend the mayor's March 31st 2020 executive order regarding the showing of housing units to specify that unoccupied housing units can still be entered. I had obviously some language around this. I'm a little concerned I've heard from some folks in real estate, that it's important that the unoccupied units, if there's people looking for housing, if there's people who've been displaced from other situations, that we can make sure that unoccupied units can still be accessed and provided to folks. So I just wanted to ask the city administration to amend, that that's the intention of that amendment. Secondly, in the second paragraph, so what this paragraph does is it's trying to say this is what the city can do to work with all of our residents. I would just strike the word apartments and add housing units with current occupants, which addresses that concern. And I would also strike and to freeze rent payments and add the following two phrases. To provide information about state and federal resources regarding mortgages and other available assistance to tenants and homeowners, and to work with tenants and landlords facing financial hardship to address rent payments. So changing that language to make it clear that the city is here to provide resources and information to residents, homeowners, and tenants alike, and try to provide as many resources possible to help people who are facing financial hardship. Finally, I spoke to some folks in OCD. I would add a third paragraph. be it further ordered that the city of Medford established a housing stability hotline that residents can call to receive information about federal, state, and city resources regarding housing stability. So those are my amendments. I've sent that amendment language to the clerk and my fellow Councilors.
[Zac Bears]: There was a letter, sorry a paper, give me one second. It is an executive order signed by the mayor it's effective noon tomorrow. Trying to find where it was sent. Yes, there is a number it is emergency orders 331 20, that is the title of it if that's the document that you have in front of you.
[Zac Bears]: I'm trying to open it and I have a white.
[Zac Bears]: And again, there's a reason there's so many amendments here is that things have been moving really fast. And this afternoon an order came out from the mayor that changed some of the substance of this.
[Zac Bears]: Given that the mayor's order has essentially put much of this, at least a piece of this, into effect today, I would be happy to table till next week. I am working with Alicia Hunt and some other folks. I've talked about this with Alicia and folks in the Office of Community Development about the hotline, about how it could be staffed. So I'm happy to work with them over the next week and talk about this next week if needed. The urgency of this was about showing units that have people in them and having other people coming into housing. While, you know, people who are living there are living there and the effects that that could pose that's been addressed by the mayor's order. I do have some concerns that the order does not exempt unoccupied units, which could be an issue, but I think that can wait till next week. I'm okay holding that till next week.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't know how many people know Larry Rasky. He's been involved in Massachusetts politics for a very long time. I was lucky enough in 2012 and 2013 to intern at Rasky Behrlein, and that has helped me tremendously going forward. I'm also friends with Larry's son, Will, actually through some work that we've done together as well. Larry passed away. His family has released that he passed away of coronavirus complications. So it's a very sad loss. for us here in Massachusetts, it really brings home to me, um, you know, having someone that I know as a friend to lose their parent to this, and also someone that I knew as having been an intern. And I know that Larry means a lot to a lot of people, um, I believe to our, to our clerk and to, to others as well. Um, and there've been a lot, a lot of outpouring and support of, uh, their family. And obviously the circumstances here really make this a very tough time to mourn, um, with the inability to, I have a lot of friends and family that are in the same situation. I just send my deepest condolences and I hope we can all send ours as well.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Bears. It's actually a A point of information through the chair to Councilor Marks, perhaps or Councilor Morell. Have those boxes also as a Fuzzway been removed in addition to the stuff being cleaned up or? Got it, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Brian, I just had a quick question for you. This sounds like a great deal. I'm glad it's happening. Are these new vehicles more energy efficient? What you said, we're taking dirty diesel off. So what does this exactly do on the environmental side?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Thank you. And it would be just to clarify again, so we'd be taking three current trucks off and adding these three new ones.
[Zac Bears]: Brian, when they're rendered useless, will we sell it for parts and scrap, or will there still be something there?
[Zac Bears]: Got it.
[Zac Bears]: You too, Brian, and your team as well.
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely, yes.
[Zac Bears]: I think it might be Molly. Might have to turn off the TV.
[Zac Bears]: Everybody seems- I think Molly might have the TV on at home. I think that might be the issue.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Just two quick questions. First, how does, you mentioned personal protective equipment and some other stuff, what ways does the Governor's declaration of a state of emergency affect how we were preparing up until this afternoon when he declared it?
[Zac Bears]: Or just in general. You mentioned PPE as one example, is there other?
[Zac Bears]: So, but just the declaration of emergency is an indication of more resources coming to help, not necessarily.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Um, and then, um, have you discussed or tomorrow are you planning to discuss any guidance for public bodies in terms of meeting. So we're all here right now. Other committees and groups meet as well. So it'll be we'll have a uniform guidance from for the city for bodies and from public health.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: I can't say it better than Councilor Scarpelli, but it's really great. to have you and so many students from Medford High. I was in your shoes not that long ago. I'm a Medford High grad. Just coming down here and voicing what you think we need to do to, I think you said it perfectly, make Medford more beautiful than it already is. So I look forward to seeing you work on some other parks too. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. So we recently created the OPEB Fund Board of Trustees. One of the seats on that board of trustees is an elected representative of the retirees of the city of Medford. I'm requesting that the city administration notify retirees by mail of the nomination deadline. However, I was informed by the administration that the nomination deadline has changed. It is no longer March 16th. Do you have a specific date, Dave?
[Zac Bears]: That would be great. And then, you know, The date would be great, but either way the motion that maybe we can strike the date from the motion and just say notify retirees by mail of the nomination deadline. Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Just strike the words March 16th and just say retirees by mail of the nomination deadline.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to add that I definitely support clarification of the rules based on the opinion and also generally going through the rules and reviewing them for making sure that they're aligned with the law, modernized, and clear to the public to read. So replacing Shiles with Musper, we can. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to say thank you to Councilor Knight for directing this, and that I strongly support it. In my past, I was a federal employee, and I believe we had a similar program. And I also know that the state has that same program, and it's incredibly helpful and important to folks who are going through difficult extended illnesses. So I strongly support this. And again, thank you and support the motion.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think assessing our rules, making sure they're good definitions, strong definitions and processes are important. One, whatever the point of action is going forward, I think part of the conversation for me would be on making, addressing rule 33, which is what is the rule that addresses the structure of council agendas and kind of aligning out with this. And then also making sure we have clear definitions of public participation as relates to the council rules and also that those are clearly explained to the public through the city website and other means. And just making sure that we are providing equal public participation to what we provide now, I think is important. So as discussion goes forward, I think it's important to keep those things in mind.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, I'd like to amend the motion. If it's still going to be moved for approval, I'd like to amend it or add a B paper that at a future committee of the whole meeting, we review the rules for public participation and review the order of the agenda pursuant to rule 33. Second. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Sure that we review any rules pursuant to public participation and also that we review and update rule 33 which outlines the Order of how we address things on the council agenda Yes, yes committee the whole correct And it could be the same committee of the whole as rules review in general. Get it done all at once.
[Zac Bears]: just want to echo, uh, my colleagues and send my condolences to the Morse family and, uh, thank all members of the Morse family for their continuing service to the community. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you to Councilor Knight again for putting forward this proposal. The organization that I run was part of the Raise Up Mass Coalition that passed the Fight for 15 law here in Massachusetts. And sadly, due to how the state constitution and state laws work, we exempted municipalities from that because it's technically an unfunded mandate. So I think it's really important that Medford steps up and says that we're going to follow along with what the state minimum wage is. And I also think just from the clear purposes of making sure we can hire folks, if you can make $3, $4, $5 more an hour, go work at Subway or some other organization or group rather than working for the city, that's going to present a problem now and down the road. So I think it's incredibly important both from a justice perspective and from a practical hiring perspective that we do this.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, sure. Some of the many of the concerns of Councilor Morell. I also think we need to make sure that we're not either implying or otherwise that any projects under consideration might be contingent on something like this moving forward. I wouldn't support this in that case. If we're going to move forward with it, I would propose an amendment that the parking that's created have pervious surfaces, permeable surfaces, allowing water to come through and not becoming another asphalt where water is potentially causing flooding. So that's the first part of it. make sure that if parking's installed, there's protection for mature trees, making sure that code enforcement or the city or whoever's responsible for the buffer strips, that they are sufficient and maintained well, and then also limiting it to one spot.
[Zac Bears]: And then limiting the And limiting to one spot, you've got that. Limiting to one spot.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, correct.
[Zac Bears]: I strongly support moving forward as quickly as possible as well as we are. Four years out now almost since the ballot question in 2016 that started this whole process. I do have one kind of question. Are we able to amend this to say that this meeting should happen within the next month or is that a... All right, then no need for an amendment.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to commend Patrick and the membership of Medford Community Media. And I'd like to make a motion to receive this and place it on file.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to adjourn, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to say thank you again and I'll be wearing the ribbon. So thank you for speaking. And I'd also like to make a motion to suspend the rules to take paper 20 There's a number of there are a number of people that number of people to speak.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. I just want to thank both of you. Is Katie a student as well?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, great. Thank you, Katie. CCSR.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Skorka, who is my homeroom teacher. Retta, of course, and Mr. Milton. No offense, Mr. Skorka was my favorite teacher from high school. And really, he's one of the reasons I'm here right now. So I just want to thank you all off the top and everyone else who helped. Councilor Morell and I worked on a proposed ordinance, which there's language for with the councilors right now. Addressing a lot of the stuff that's in your presentation. It is based on our city's plastic bag ordinance but obviously. Addressing a different topic, but it's based on that structure. So it's something that we've done recently around environmental protection. Provides the same protections around for businesses, you know, if they have an undue hardship, that kind of thing. And so it addresses the city as well and businesses in terms of going into effect. It would go into effect in 2021, which gives we think enough time for the city. And especially the school committee is currently working on a report that would address the costs for the schools and how much that would, what the effects would be there. And it really gives time for everyone to adjust and get to a good place. So I just wanted you to know that we took it very seriously, drafted an ordinance, and after everyone speaks, we'd like to move it to a committee of the whole so we can have the conversation to get this on the books. So thank you so much, and to everyone who came out tonight as well, and everyone who worked on this.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President, and just thank you again. So I would like to move that we take the text of this draft ordinance and have a committee of the whole meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilors Caraviello and Knight for bringing this forward. I just couldn't get, I went to school from first grade to 12th grade with Ariana. So we, you know, we've been friends with the Roaches since I was a kid. Um, and, uh, I can remember when they opened CB scoops and you know, It had been an ice cream shop, but especially at that point, it became a place that we were all excited to go to after, you know, a play or a concert or a game. And it's a place where young people, and I think it's something, it's a place where young people can go and be together and know, you know, they're safe, they're getting ice cream, it's not, you know, they're not somewhere else. And I think it's just a great community resource and a great place for young people to go. And that's my memory of CB Scoops. And I just think that's a great thing and we need more of it in Medford. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I strongly support this and I'd also like to amend the paper to see if the building commissioner can get from the general contractor a list of subcontractors and whether or not they are union or non-union.
[Zac Bears]: Cheryl, just one question. Have they started working after the fine was issued? Have they continued work after the fine was issued?
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. And I just want to say that I also really strongly support looking into different incentives, fees, whatever we can on the flipping so that we aren't essentially having a city ordinance and zoning code that incentivizes people to double the value of a house and displace working people. So, just thank you for bringing that up.
[Zac Bears]: I just very quickly want to add that I hope that we will soon have an affordable housing trust in which to deposit these funds. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: If residents are wondering where this money may end up, that's one place.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to acknowledge definitely that we need to make sure that we have the best community process possible. And I want to acknowledge the city engineer and the traffic engineer's outreach to many houses and families in the area, both the folks who are having takings, the folks who have issues with walls, as we heard extensively last meeting. And I think, absolutely, we need to make every possible action we can to accommodate people with disabilities, people with handicap parking, 80-year-olds who really need access to their home. But there's a few things here. I think the first thing to say is that this is 100% state and federal money. This project doesn't use any city dollars. So I just want to put that out there. And it's not matching. It's not additional. This is a million dollars we won't otherwise have. And no city money will be going towards it. So a few things, one, the studies done by the traffic engineer and the city engineer showed that much of the parking on the south side of High Street does go underused most of the time. That's not to say there aren't cases and specifics. kindergarten concerts and certain people who park in front of their houses of a certain age, but that the statistics showed that most of that parking was going underutilized or unutilized completely. And then just this bike path to nowhere thing. You might not think I ride a bike, and I've never ridden a bike on High Street, but I have a lot of friends who do bike, and That's actually the one place on High Street. If I had to pick anywhere on High Street between the Arlington Rotary and the Winthrop Street Rotary to put a bike lane, it would be exactly where this bike lane is. It's the highest slope uphill in a place where traffic coming across the hill is obstructed view. You can't see people coming up the hill. And you need to separate out bike traffic and street traffic or else you're going to get in a situation where you have bike traffic. slowing up to 10, five miles an hour. You try huffing a bike all the way up the hill from West Medford Square to the top of the hill past Auburn Street, you're gonna be biking pretty slow. And the point of this bike lane is to separate out the traffic at exactly the point at which the speed of the bikes and the speeds of the car traffic are gonna be at the most disparate. So it's not really a path to nowhere. It's saying that if you're on share road shared lanes everywhere else, this is the one spot of the road where you actually want to separate out the traffic. So that's just the bike. That's the engineering behind it. And so I just want to put out there, it's not really a path to nowhere. It's actually putting a bike lane in one of the spots where it's safest.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information, Mr. President. I think if you ask bike riders, they might disagree with you. I completely agree. I think we should, the windy section between Winthrop Street and Woburn Street, that'd be great, but that's not in the scope of this project. So I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater here. This is going to make the street safer. It's a dangerous street. And if we're saying that this is the end all be all and we kill it over this and something happens, God forbid, I think that's on us. So I'm just saying here, We shouldn't, I agree, we should talk to folks. I'm fine moving the process forward, but if it comes down to the federal and state government saying we will not provide you with this money if you want this change, I think we really need to think hard about that because we're talking about the safety of a major thoroughfare.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, again, I just think we will be worse off if something happens, and right now we are worse off because people drive 45 miles an hour down High Street, and it's incredibly dangerous. So I just want to make that clear. That's the question. It's a very wide street. This project would make it much safer, safer to cross at all hours. Sure, let's reassess the parking, but I think the idea of a bike lane to nowhere and the rhetoric we're hearing here is a little overblown, and we really If the point of this study is to make sure that we have all our ducks in a row and we know everything, let's go with what the studies have said and what the traffic engineer and the city engineer have been saying, you know, if we really want to get there. And I don't find that the bike lane-to-nowhere thing is grounded in any sort of evidence. Yes, we have another unsafe situation half a mile down the street. We should address this as well. But if you're a biker biking up High Street towards the eastbound east, I'm pretty sure most bikers would say they'd rather have a separated lane so they're not worried someone's going to come up at 35 miles an hour and hit them from behind. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: A separately marked lane.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and just another point of information. I believe that the folks from MassDOT and the city engineer said that they permit for Safe Routes to School over a five-year period, 15 to 20 projects are approved during that time, and there were at least double the applications of that. It was an incredibly selective process. We were one of, I believe, three projects in the whole state to be permitted, at least that's my recollection from the meeting in that year. A lot of people did a lot of work to get to this point, including a lot of parents who send their kids to the Brooks School.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think I started my remarks saying I agree that we need to make sure that community input is what it needs to be and that everyone has a chance to get notified and have their voice on it. I just also want to make sure that we don't, in the process of doing that, use rhetoric that may not be entirely accurate about bike lanes, that may injure or bias The people viewing to think that one part of this project is less important than the other. I think we're balancing needs, right? We're talking about balancing the need for on-street parking and the need for bike safety. And then this third need, which is what are the requirements of the project? Or what are the requirements of the funding? And I just think we need to be careful with the words that we use. I mean, to say that this bike lane goes to nowhere. It's not exactly accurate to its purpose. So that's that's the reason that I brought it forward again. I'm not biking up the street. I'm driving. So, you know, I have it's not coming from my personal experience. But, you know, that's where I'm coming from on this. And I also think we just need to make sure that we don't let people think. You know if we want this project to go forward we need to make sure that we're being completely open that I think as admitted here. We need to look at the options and maybe keeping on street parking in some cases won't be an option if we want to move forward. And I don't think we want through the idea of saying we want to compromise and come together on this which I don't think is a bad thing. I just don't want to think that we can also say that everyone's going to get everything they want at the end of the day because that's not really what we're in the business here. It's it's we can't keep all the parking and do the bike lane and so maybe there's a solution here. Maybe there's not. And I think we need to be open about that. And I also think we need to be open about the timeline that we're on which is you know we have some time here. I think this is a better time to bring it up in three months from now. And I completely agree with that. But you know we do have a timeline to keep for land takings and all of this to go forward. So I just want to make sure that while we're respecting that and respecting what our reality of our options are here that we don't let people think that they're going to get something that they're not going to get out of it as well. I think we need to be realistic about what this final, what the end game here, what the solution might be. And that's where I'm coming from on it. And I think that's our job.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just a couple of things. I would love to spend this money on long-term planning, but we're not allowed to by the purposes of the project. It's been in for a few years. The Roberts also applied, but they were not accepted, I think, mainly because of the danger. I mean, it's a dangerous area by the Roberts as well. I think there were specifics to the Roberts case, not to the proposal, but to the area around there as to why it wasn't accepted. You'd have to ask the people who didn't accept it. But I completely agree with you we need long term planning. My understanding is that several of the plans that you mentioned that the mayor's office and the chief of staff are working on trying to get to a street and sidewalk plan and that that's at least my understanding is that they're working to get to that point. But they would need to update you on that and that is their job. But yes. In terms of this specific money and in terms of the applications for the other schools, other schools applied, it actually came from the schools with parents working with the administration of the schools. And yeah, this money can't be spent on anything else. So while I'd love to spend it on thinking bigger, this is the opportunity we have before us and I think we need to take it to make a street safer.
[Zac Bears]: The project does a lot for pedestrian safety as well.
[Zac Bears]: intersection orientation on traffic, and also if they have any data or anecdotes on the impact of the Broadway bus lane on there. Repeat it.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Amendment to ask if the change in the intersection has, if they have data on the impact on traffic, and then also if there has been a traffic impact from the Broadway bus lanes installed by the city of Somerville.
[Zac Bears]: My mic's still on, just FYI.
[Zac Bears]: I can shut it off.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And maybe Councilor Caraviello can answer. It says traffic signals at Whole Foods. Do you mean the entire South Street, Auburn Street, Mystic Valley Parkway intersection? Yeah. I'd just like to amend the paper to name the streets on the intersection, if that's all right. Yeah. And also to capitalize Whole Foods if possible.
[Zac Bears]: Is that Auburn on the south side of Mystic Valley as well? It's Auburn on both sides.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not sure if it should be an amendment or a B paper, but I think a B paper to at least if we're sending this over to also review similar conditions at Bradshaw and Spring Street. I don't actually know if the residents want to sign, but I think it's similar conditions, dangerous to turn. So if the traffic engineer could review that.
[Zac Bears]: Spring.
[Zac Bears]: I actually didn't know that, so that's helpful. And I think part of the review should be yellow paint, right? There should be a marking of some kind.
[Zac Bears]: I am incredibly disappointed to say that I found them pristine.
[Zac Bears]: I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: I once again won't let you know how old I am.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I just want to thank everyone who's here. And I also want to thank you for giving us multiple at-bats on this, going to the school committee, coming here, because I don't think enough people in Medford know these statistics. They're pretty shocking. I'm just going to repeat them. 1 in 10 residents of the city facing food insecurity, 1 in 8 children facing food insecurity, 1 in 14 seniors facing food insecurity. And I think every time we can say that, on public access television and wherever else so that people know it's a problem is important. I think Councilor Marks and Sra and Marianne and others brought up a really good point which is that addressing food insecurity is an intersectional issue and the work that we do around housing affordability and the cost of living and the economy and making sure Medford works for everyone who lives here helps address this problem. That doesn't mean we don't have food plans and food-based solutions but I think we need to think of it holistically. I, in my other life, work with college students and workers on campuses, and this is a huge problem there. I was lucky enough to be at a Greater Boston Food Bank sponsored event and Project Bread and a bunch of others talking about housing and food insecurity, homelessness, and hunger on public college campuses. Upwards of 25% of students at community colleges in Massachusetts are facing hunger on a regular basis. Upwards of 10% of community college students are facing housing insecurity or homelessness on a regular basis. So some of those people live here. Some of those people live in Medford and go to school at these places. And I just want to bring that into the conversation and thank the groups that are here who are working to address that. I also want to thank the MicroPantry group and the Board of Health as well. Yeah, I think I've said almost everything I want to say, and I'm really happy about the intentional approach and the progress that we've made, but I want to make sure that we get the resources that we need to address it and that we can do our best to try to integrate food and food insecurity into the other conversations we're having about what it means to live in Medford. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just had a quick question for you, Rob. So it says in here 7 to 10 days. I don't know anything about the engineering of the project, so completely ignorant. If my questions come from a place of ignorance, I hope you'll correct me. But it says 7 to 10, you said 5. Is that, are you doing something different?
[Zac Bears]: Yep, got it. And is this basically just pulling the cable from one end to the other?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And just looking at what Councilor Neill was looking at, is there a reason you, and maybe it's completely coincidental, is there a reason that it looks like the construction started on the MassDOT jurisdiction and is moving to Medford, or?
[Zac Bears]: I had one more. Just looking at Vault 12, police stations being built right across the street. Do you plan to time that? Have you coordinated that with the chief?
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think it says it all. I would like to move the report that we got from the acting solicitor to a future committee of whole meeting.
[Zac Bears]: I think it's a pilot program, and if at the end of the pilot program it's so successful, I think we should explore what Councilor Knight was suggesting. I'd like to make a motion to add a B paper to this, requesting that our state delegation ask the Speaker of the House and the Senate President to increase Chapter 90 in this year's budget.
[Zac Bears]: And to clarify, asking the Speaker of the House and the Senate President, that's where we are in the budget cycle.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Two quick questions. Might actually be for the clerk, so I, yeah. I just don't know the protocol there. I notice a couple of the polling locations don't have addresses, specifically Ward 7, Precinct 1, north building entrance, but there's not a street address. Is that just common practice, or?
[Zac Bears]: Is it posted online with it, or is it everywhere else that has the address?
[Zac Bears]: Will there be early voting and does that have to be part of this resolution?
[Zac Bears]: And that doesn't have to be included within the resolution?
[Zac Bears]: Well, will you Mr. Clerk post additional signage?
[Zac Bears]: And I also just want to say that I will be early voting in the chambers, which the clerk would like to hear.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I hope that bond bill passes and we can get the money soon. I talked to a few residents, and I think what happened on Friday, there was a pedestrian accident on Friday, and we are very lucky, as someone who's lost a friend in a situation like that, the different way that the car impacts the person can deeply affect how that turns out, and I think we really lucked out. I know that the pipeline project is going to South Street, so maybe the painting and all that might be a little, raised crosswalks, sidewalks might be a little more difficult, but a stop sign at Truro and South. that can go in even if they're gonna tear up the road. That's exactly where the incident happened. A resident at 76 South talked to me in October when I was running and I spoke to her about, she specifically requested that. We brought it up recently. I really think that stop sign, expedite the expediting on that if we can. We really don't want another incident to go poorly there.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. In terms of what's exactly in the bond bill, I'm not going to speak to the specifics of that. But just in terms of the process, you are correct that this bill has not, I believe it might be part of a larger transportation bond bill package. I'm not sure. It's an $18 billion package. It hasn't been passed by the House, nor the Senate, nor signed by the governor at this point. And then even after that, Governor Baker has to release those funds to us. We are several steps away in the process, but the House potentially voting on that tomorrow would be good.
[Zac Bears]: I'll be very quick. I think Patrick Gordon would like me to remind everyone that you can join Medford Community Media for free. And they have a lot of resources, and they're looking for more programs, bringing people down. Patrick's incredibly responsive. And yeah, head over there. It's free. And it's not free in a lot of communities. So that's an important thing to note.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't know, possible and also making sure that with only two households using this, I mean, that might be that people don't want to. My people be that people don't know that the cap was raised to 40,000 recently. I think there's a lot of information questions there. So I just strongly support this motion and the B paper.
[Zac Bears]: As someone who used textile recycling this week. Thank you. Councilor Knight. And I also that yeah I got it from the first but much appreciated. I think this is an important issue and I just wanted to make my own joke which is I think it's always good when the person you're trying to regulate is asking for regulations. So I'm encouraged by this.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Introduce this resolution with Councilor Morell because as I think many people in the room and it's already come up once tonight but also many people across the city know there are now several applications under Chapter 40 B for a large new housing developments. There is the one on Mystic Valley Parkway. There's also one on the Fells way and now combined properties has issued. At least started the process around Mystic Avenue. These are I mean I think those add up to almost a thousand new units. It might even be more than that. I'll have to double check my math. But obviously that's significant new development. And it's happening under state statute that limits some of our ability to control development. I think as I've said many times to people that all of this development should be community driven. We need to have community driven processes to make sure that development is happening. The way that we wanted to happen, not the way that developers wanted to happen, but as I said, anything that's coming through 40 B puts us in a much more difficult position to get that done. We will need strong community and administrative pushback, or at least, you know, really a strong movement around these projects to see what we can do. To make them fit into the community and in a reasonable way if possible. And I think it just speaks a couple things specifically on 40 B that I want to get out there. It really speaks to the need to get to safe harbor around this so that we can make sure that developers are negotiating with the city and with the community. And also just speaks to the fact that on any of these in any of these developments all of the affordable you know the defined affordable units need to be in perpetuity. We need to make sure that those units are permanent to the best extent possible. And I want to turn it over to Councilor Morell, who I believe spoke to the administration and has some updates as well.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a point of information, which is that even if we were to do a moratorium because of how Chapter 40B is written, these projects could move forward anyway. So that's kind of the crux of the issue here, is we need to That that if we did a moratorium then and then we could still get 40 B applications in that move through the process outside of our zoning and height and design restrictions and whatnot. So so that's part of the point is I think we need to get to that safe harbor point where 40 B is not the threat that it is right now.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know if that's, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Somerville was at their 10% safe harbor threshold, so they couldn't get 40B the way that we can, being under that percentage.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Mr. President. So I think there's two issues here. One is let me preface this. So the issue here is that the council should have the ability to have its own legal services for a variety of reasons. I think in just permanently I think it's important for the council to have that resource so that we can get legal opinions and have legal services independent of the executive branch of the city administration. I think that will be always permanent but also I think the current circumstances facing the city bring us to. I won't say a unique point but kind of we're coming to a head with the amount of ordinances and other work that we're going to need to do especially as a council. And also we know the city solicitors currently enacting city solicitors so there is a process to hire a permanent city solicitor. So I think there's both good reasons at all times why the council should have legal services and also very important reasons at this moment as to why the council should have legal services and My motion on the issue would be that we make sure to add it to the future agenda of our committee of the whole meeting with the mayor, which I believe is forthcoming.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And that's great.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to second what everyone said and also just add that as a Mustang, as a graduate of Medford High School, it's just great that you made the school and the city so proud. And I hope we'll be able to congratulate you for something else again. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Mr. President and I want to thank Councilor Marks for such a detailed presentation. I think it's incredibly important that massive multinational corporations be accountable to our local governance and not just allowed to run free and do whatever they want. And I also agree that. This process has been reflective of an issue with the city around notification and making sure that residents are involved and engage the decisions that we're making. So I think those changes are welcome and I would also agree with the motions asking our I mean it's ridiculous that the telecommunications act doesn't factor in health. That's that's nuts. So I think we need that state and federal action as well. Just one thing I wanted to bring up and add to the conversation is that the small cell approach to 5G is not the only approach that the large corporations are using. AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint are looking at different ways of deploying this technology. As far as I'm aware, only Verizon right now is moving ahead with installing small cells as the way that this network would work. So I'd really also like to get some Clarification about how that deployment might work differently in a policy or an ordinance. Obviously the small cells, that's been the focus of discussion because that's what Verizon's bringing in. But there's definitely, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint are talking about many fewer antennas that are longer range. And I'd like to make sure that any policy that we implement or any research that we bring up factors in different ways that potentially 5G may be deployed by these companies.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I was hoping a second, but Councilor Knight beat me to it. Thank you. And I was also hoping to catch some of the people leaving the room. If you know me, and this may speak strangely to my character, but two of my favorite things in the world are the post office and the census. And I just, to the people watching can't implore you enough to fill out your census form. It means we've done a census since 1800. It's one of the biggest things we do every 10 years. It's one of the biggest non-wartime mobilizations of people by the government that we do. And it goes into so much more. I mean, it goes into everything that Councilor Scarpelli said, which is incredibly important. It's also the foundation of basically all the statistics and facts that we have on the population of this country, most of the social science research that's done at the local, state, and federal level. And you may not have voted for me for this, but I'm incredibly passionate about the census, and I'd love to talk to Director Osborne about it. So I just want to remind everyone that April 1st is Census Day. Have your forms in by April 1st.
[Zac Bears]: working for the city is an immense public service, and I thank Carol.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to add that if I'm on Facebook, Medford Square, Medford Politics, whichever group it might be, this might be the issue I see most. You know, there's things that come and go. This is a consistent issue. And we need to address it. We need our state delegation to address it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: The other aspect of this, Councilor Caraviello, you made me think of it, is, you know, we've been talking about behavioral health and substance use disorder, and there's commission being proposed currently, and I think it might be worth, and I won't offer this as an amendment, I'll offer this as just a point of information, but I think it might be worth considering. what we could do around providing additional literature around addiction and substance use disorders, which I think we know, and I personally know of people in my life who are drinking nips because they have a substance use disorder.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Mr. President. I got a message this week from a Medford resident who crosses regularly at the crosswalk that if I stood up I might be able to see from the window right here and it is pretty faded. It's you know this can be a pretty high speed area here on City Hall Mall. There's the merging traffic and then they're going back out and Harbour Vanguard's pretty high traffic. City Hall can be pretty high traffic and I just think It's important for that crosswalk to be visible for drivers. And I will also talk to the DPW about it myself as well this week.
[Zac Bears]: Very quickly. I just wanted to say I think the legal counsel issue is incredibly important and also that we get official city emails.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. So, as many Medford residents know, some non-profit organizations are, well, all non-profit organizations are tax-exempt and some of them pay what are called payments in lieu of taxes, commonly known as pilots, to the city. The largest, well, not the largest one, but a major one that we discuss is Tufts. There's also River's Edge. And these are typically paid out at least for Tufts in cash payments and in community benefits. We currently don't define community benefits. And essentially what this would be is starting a discussion where the council and the mayor and residents of the city can kind of figure out how do we want to deal with pilots going forward. The proposal for a commission would be a way for the mayor to include other residents whether it be neighbors of Tufts or People with a vested interest or whatever it may be on a commission to negotiate with these nonprofits to talk about what community benefits mean to the city create a definition. And then allow us to perhaps have multiple people negotiating these agreements and historically they've been negotiated by the mayor. and also people who could distribute the cash payments and define and relay what community benefits are coming through pilots. The intention of this is to start a discussion, see what an ordinance could look like. I think we'd be doing something differently than we've done in the past and that many neighboring communities do, although there are some examples of things in the past with Boston. So really, just asking to start the conversation about how we address pilots going forward. I know it's a big topic for Tufts and also for many residents in the city who have been working very hard trying to make sure that we're getting what the city is due. So that is the intent of the resolution.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I just want to add thank you to Councilors Marks and Morell that have also talked a little bit with the mayor's office. They're interested, and I think if we want to go to Committee of the Whole, draft something. If we want to do something in the short term with the mayor's office and then take time on an ordinance, I think all of those avenues are open to us, which is great.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you again Mr. President. So before or in previous meetings we discussed the local option and that has passed through the short term rental act also gives the municipality authority around. the existence and location of operators, licensing, making sure that operators aren't facing code enforcement, and also making sure that they're inspected for health and safety. And we also are allowed to assess a small fee to make sure that we can enforce those regulations. So we'll be funded. And turn it over to Councilor Morell, but I think this is something we need to add to the local option.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to throw my hat in the ring that I haven't seen that it's manned six days a week. And that's surprising to me because it seems to get bigger every time I see it. So I don't know if they're actually getting stuff out of there. But I was in the parking lot 10 days ago and I was incredibly surprised at the size of the pile and the condition of it. I agree with this motion. I think we should draft an ordinance. I think that one specifically maybe we should try to do something. If there's a snowstorm that goes on a bunch of couches, I think that's an issue that somebody needs to deal with. And I think if it's before us that we should maybe move on the Fellsway one a little bit quicker, but I'm open to whatever folks think on that.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to thank you for bringing this forward. I'm kind of an interesting position on this. My before I was born my aunt passed away from epilepsy. So we have that. But I've also had a very close friend who passed away in a pedestrian accident. So kind of trying to think that through. But I really appreciate you bringing this. I want to take a hard look at it. It's meaningful to me on all fronts. And And I think just having the research, doing the research, having the conversation is really important. So thank you for bringing it forward.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. And more of a point of information than anything else, but I'm strongly supportive of this. I know how important La Conte is to so many families and people in the city. Just for my edification, since you guys seem like experts, do you know how long the current Zamboni's been? We've had that one a while. OK, so like double my life. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Um, and then, uh, any estimate, you know, used or new, how much a new one might cost? No idea. It's close between 80 and 120,000. Depends what you want to add to it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for bringing this up. I think we definitely need to look at the Toro and Walnut stop signs. Residents of that neighborhood mentioned that to me a lot when I was down there in the fall. The other thing, I think residents on Curtis Street, they're a two-way street. It's the first street parallel to Winthrop coming down South Street towards the square. That's currently two-way. The residents would like that to be a one-way. It's becoming a cut-through and it's also to the residents' concerns. They think it's endangering children on the street. There's no sidewalks. So that's something I'd like to add to the list. And I think it'd be good to look at trucking somehow. I don't know what the answer is there, because they are banned on Mystic Valley Parkway. And I don't know that High Street is the option either. But we should definitely look at it.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. I just wonder if it's worth putting a time limit. I know we just voted on it, but some sort of time frame that we'd like a response by X sooner rather than later. I don't want to define the time limit, but I think follow through requires a deadline. We should set the deadline and expect them to follow through.
[Zac Bears]: 10 days. Great. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: 7. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to thank President Falco for bringing this forward. I was never a scout myself, but I was on the service projects of many of my friends who were, and becoming an Eagle Scout is certainly no easy task. So I think it's something to be congratulated.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to say I thought it was fantastic that it was on the agenda. This is something that I've talked to a lot of people about, that I campaigned for this office on, that Councilor Morell and I have written up some language as well, so we'd love to share it with the whole group and see where we can get to the best place. And I think another opportunity is Airbnb funding as well. You know, this short-term rental money could go to this. And I've spoken to people on the CPC, Community Preservation Committee, who think this is a great opportunity for them to use the affordable housing funds from the CPA. I was just at the Statehouse today testifying in favor of a bill that would give us the right to consider a transfer fee, which is another way that we could fund this if we want to really ramp this up, which I think You know, we would be the 110th community, right? There are a lot of communities that have had years and decades to put money into these funds. We are not there, but we need to be there quickly. So I think we need to really consider linkage and if this transfer fee goes through or even if it doesn't, maybe considering a home rule to make sure that we can fund this and really make sure that we build affordable units. You said, you know, I'm not sure if kids can live here. I'm the kid who can't live here. Right. I live with my parents. I'm 26 and I do that because I love this city and I want to represent the city and I'm honored to. But I'd love to live in an apartment. You know I'd love to do that. But in Medford that's not an option for me right now. So. You know, it's not, to me, a hard question to answer. We need this. We need it immediately. And I think also looking, you know, big developers are coming in, that we have very valuable land. I think we should look at linkage fees and stuff like that to fund something like this as well. So I really, really, really want to have this conversation. I'm really glad that it's starting.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to thank you for speaking. I do think we need to have this conversation because there are people in our community who are paying over 50% of their income for their housing, and it's a growing number. I think, and I just, again, I was at the State House talking about some state-level solutions to this housing problem, but we need to have a serious conversation, whether it's through the zoning review, or whether it's a separate conversation about what affordable means to Medford, and setting our affordable guidelines based on that, because I completely agree, what's there now isn't working, what is in existence in the affordable realm doesn't really apply to middle-income people, and again, We're talking about our home valuations in some cases quadrupling in the last 20 years. I mean, we need to really think about what we're doing. And quite frankly, we need to try to adjust the market rate. That needs to be an intent of this body. We can do that. That's what happens if you build 100 affordable units, it changes the market rate in your city, right? So we need to have that as an intent, really think it through, because market rate housing isn't working for people. In my opinion, and I think the opinion of many people, let's build more market rate housing is just kind of a giveaway to big developers to want to build luxury condos. And I don't think people in Medford really want that. So I think we need to have a broader conversation about what affordability means for us, who we want to live in Medford. I don't think we can do it now, but I think it's something that we need to consider as we're considering the entire zoning review and what we're doing with development going forward. So thank you for bringing that up.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to commend my colleagues for bringing this forward. It's essential for public safety, seeing what happened in North Andover, Andover, and Lawrence, that they get this right. And even more importantly, I'd like to see climate crisis mitigation, make sure that this pipeline isn't leaking gas. It's the last thing Medford needs to be doing is adding more natural gas to the atmosphere. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to say two things. One, I think South and Maine, we need to address it. I also think Councilor Knight's original motion, we need to address that. I've been also stuck in that traffic. But I am also a resident of a state road. I live on Fellsway West. I live on a DCR road, not a MassDOT road. And I think something we as a council need to think about and talk to our state delegation about is that DCR is deeply underfunded. They're not getting the money they need. They're patching things together. I don't know if anyone's driven up by spot pawn, but they've been fixing the the road around Spot Pond for like two years, and I'm assuming it's because they don't have enough money to hire construction crews. So that's something I think the council should explore, look at, as well as just speaking with our state delegation about how we can make sure that our state agencies have the funding they need to actually provide the services that we deserve.
[Zac Bears]: Hi, Director. Thank you for being here. Just a quick question. It says, without further appropriation, is that further appropriation by the general court or by this council?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Just another quick question. Is this agreement in perpetuity? Or how long does it go for? Looking at the schedule, it goes at least 26 years. Or at least that's what the payment schedule seems to me to suggest.
[Zac Bears]: And then just, this came to us from Mayor Burke, and I was just wondering if Mayor Lungo-Koehn had any, if you discussed this with the new administration, or if there's any, just coming through. Yes, I have.
[Zac Bears]: And I think to Councilor Knight's point, This is a lot of money over a long period of time. It's not as much in each year but over a long period of time it is. Was it the D.O.R.' 's recommendation that it be not subject to the appropriation of the council or
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I don't disagree with you, but a home rule petition isn't always an easy win. I mean, maybe we have a change in state delegation and suddenly it's not as easy to get home rule petitions through. But I guess just back to the question, You were saying that at the end of the year, it would go to free cash. Would it be possible for us to amend this to say that it's subject to appropriation of the council, and then could we send the money back to the fund for the next year, or is that not allowed with the special revenue funds?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So so if we created the special revenue fund, but said we wanted the final things to be subject to preparation the council We wouldn't be in violation of the agreement. No great. Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I mean, I hear the arguments, and I don't discount them at all. I think there's a lot of reasons, especially from the clerk's office and the taxing nature that the current schedule puts on them on Fridays. I hear all of that. In terms of items under suspension, I think I'd be interested in what's coming up under suspension. It's my first meeting as a councillor, but I've watched, I've been to meetings. It doesn't seem to me that ground-shaking, earth-shattering items are coming up under suspension, so that's just something I'd like to kind of dig into a little bit more maybe. And I do think, to an extent, I hear the argument about being here when City Hall's open all day, but... You know we have a committee the whole and department head needs to be serving a resident of Medford at 6 p.m. on a Wednesday. I think that's a valid reason to maybe say let's think about this a little more as well. And then I hear you on community engagement Councilor Knight. But you know I've heard from some members of the community since you brought this up in the previous meeting at the end of 2019 that you know a lot of things in the city are scheduled around the fact that this meeting is on Tuesdays and it may not show from You know the audience here tonight, but you know on big nights I think people are scheduling their community meetings on you know Wednesday Thursday or another day because they know that if something's big they want to come here and End up be able to be present at the council meeting or even even watch from home And I also think that the agenda timing it's inconvenient for the clerk's office and may be difficult for us to get items filed by Thursday, but it also gives the public and us a you know, most of Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and most of Tuesday to review an agenda. So, so there are some community engagement pieces on that side where, uh, I do think that, um, having five days to review the agenda and if you don't catch it on Friday, you can catch it all the way on Tuesday and you might see an item, uh, there's, there's strong value in that for the community as well.
[Zac Bears]: And Councilor, I just want to say I do strongly applaud the goals here and I think we all need to increase transparency and especially think outside the box. I completely agree with Councilor Morell that if we want to change the, if we have an issue with suspension, we need to change the rules around suspension or the norms that we all share and the actions that we take as councilors around suspension. I'd also think might be an opportunity to have a discussion about more of the supporting materials being online, potentially some sort of, maybe we could change the suspension process so that we could do it over the weekend and actually get it out to the public, maybe not on the agenda. I'd have to study open meeting law to make sure that we can do that, but really look at digital ways, maybe even a council social media page to get those issues out, whether it's to a fellow councilor so that we can study it or to the public so that it's at least out there in some way. Don't know if we can. I think there's really a chance here to look at a lot of different ways that we can change or adjust the procedures of the council to make sure that people know what's happening and can be involved in what we do.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I think very similarly, you know, haven't had the chance to be behind the rail and have him on the other side and see what that looks like from this side. But I was lucky enough to attend Councilor Rumley's goodbye party hour-long speech by Mark. But it was actually really great, especially to be able to hear Mark talk about those debates. And you could tell it was issue based because he was able to be congenial and the person on the other side of that argument was in the room and they were laughing about it together. And I think that goes to show that you know he would say that he won and that's why it was fine. But I think it just goes to show that he really did great service to the city and I hope that we will. have his help on the marijuana ordinance and many of the other things that he worked on before that he before he left that maybe only he knows well enough to describe and explain to the public. So I just want to thank him as well for his service and hopefully see him here as a citizen and as a as a help to our council.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, I think our near neighbors in Cambridge had a historic day yesterday. They have a plan E form of government, so they elected their mayor yesterday. But Sumbul Siddiqui, I've been really happy to work with her a lot in her role as a Councilor and my role as a private citizen and advocate around regional work on pilot payment and lose of taxes. Obviously, they have Harvard and MIT, so they're getting a little bit more than we are. But it's still a regional issue. nonprofits need to be paying their fair share and supporting the community. She immigrated here with her parents from Pakistan at age two, grew up in public housing towers, and I think her story really shows that government is for everyone and that really leading us into this new century, new millennium, new decade, whatever we want to call it, I think we should congratulate her on becoming the first Muslim mayor in the history of the Commonwealth.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilor Caraviello, you don't want to know when I was born, but I just wanted to also say, Chris, thank you for bringing these in, and send our best to the former clerk. And also, I hope we address your concerns on the blasting.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I don't know if it's worth anything else, but it might be worth at least bringing up in the meeting is what are our policies around notifying a butters, especially if we're going to do blasting, which might have a larger range than more traditional, the region that we, I mean, 26 Barbara lanes close, but it's not an immediate a butter. Um, might need to look at that for blasting just cause we don't want people scared.
[Zac Bears]: Yep.