Medford council asks administration for update after residents say new trash contract cuts townhouse services

The Medford City Council voted to request an update from the city administration about a new 10-year solid-waste contract after residents of townhouse-style condominium complexes said they were blindsided by the change and faced new out‑of‑pocket trash costs.

Councilor Lemming introduced the resolution asking the administration to explain whether and how the contract could continue city-provided waste removal for townhouse-style condominium properties. He framed the item as a response to constituent complaints and said the resolution aims to get clarity and “put some pressure” on administration to reconsider the contract’s effect on small, owner‑occupied condo properties.

Residents from Fountainhead Estates (50 Hicks Ave) described the local effect. Robert Carney, a trustee, told the council his 23‑unit complex had received a 60‑day notice that it would lose city service and said the city’s eligibility rules appeared arbitrary: “Why do they receive services? It appears they are still receiving trash services based on the fact that each unit has a different street number,” Carney said, asking whether separate addressing would restore service.

Other speakers echoed that townhouse-style units are materially similar to single‑family homes and said the change was inconsistent with prior practice. Laura Lafferty, from the same complex, said the city appeared to be treating identical structures differently depending on ownership: “It shouldn't matter who owns the property,” she said, and urged city officials to consider the Commonwealth’s existing definitions that sometimes treat townhouse‑style units as single‑family for programs like Mass Save.

Commissioner of Public Works Tim McGivern told the council the change grew out of a solid‑waste task force and an effort to equalize who receives municipal service: some condominium properties historically paid their own hauler while others received city service. He said the task force and DPW briefed the council and that the mayor’s office negotiated the contract. McGivern also said the administration has granted extensions and can work with affected properties: “I have the ability to grant extensions to that 60 days, which I have on multiple occasions, including 50 Hicks Avenue,” he said.

Councilors pressed for greater transparency and data about how many townhouses and condominiums are affected and whether exceptions or phased approaches are possible. Councilor Scarpelli and others said the core problem is communication: residents felt blindsided by a contract they did not realize would alter locally expected services.

On a roll‑call vote, the council approved the motion to request an update from the administration and to explore whether some townhouse‑style condominium properties might remain eligible for city waste removal or receive transitional assistance. The council did not change the contract at the meeting; it asked the administration to return with clarifying information and potential remedies.

What happens next: The administration was asked to provide a written update, including the contract’s eligibility criteria, any possible exceptions, the estimated cost impact, and whether the mayor can and will continue to allow transitional extensions for particular properties.