Okay. So, it is 6:30 on the dot and I'm calling this meeting to order. Um, this meeting is being recorded by the appointments and ordinances committee. If anyone else is recording, you please let me know.
And I was thinking about orienting people to the meeting and the order of things given who's here, but we'll get to that in a moment. So, I'm going to do a roll call of members. Um, because we are all in person, you don't need to do any roll call votes.
>> All right. So, councelor Webb >> here. >> Councelor Williams >> here. Councelor Gordon >> here. Councelor Bulldock >> here. Councelor Golib is here. The next item on the agenda is to accept the minutes. Motion accept moved. >> Second.
>> Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of accepting the minutes. >> I know. And no. So then the next thing is just to each vote we make just to write it on the top and then check it off like Y for yes and for no for
estate. Okay. So I am going to uh take public comment now. So if you are online here to make public comment, please write your name
in the chat and I will take public comment first in person and then online and >> sign up who wants to. >> Yeah. And you will have three minutes to give public comment and I will go in the order that is here
and then there. So the first person to give public comment is Stacy Miner. >> Stacy. Come up here. Come up here and everyone's here to give comment and then you can >> Okay.
>> All right. So I start now. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I always I always keep a timer for three minutes. >> Okay. Um did you receive the resolution um from the M&A? >> Okay. So I'm here Okay. So I'm here to speak about that. Okay. Um so um my name
is Stacy Miner. Uh I'm a registered nurse at Bayate Franklin Medical Center. Um I appreciate you taking the time to hear us tonight. Um um so I'm here uh because I'm proud to care for my community. I'm also concerned about how the issues in this resolution are affecting the care that we provide our
patients. Um right now we are in contract negotiations with Bay State Health uh fighting for a fair union contract to help protect our patients and keep care local. At the heart of these negotiations is um safe patient care. Uh we currently have nurseto
patient limits that establish how many patients a nurse can be assigned um so we can give each patient the attention and care that they deserve. Um we fought hard to secure these patient limits when we went on strike in 2017 and 2018.
Now, Bayate is proposing to tie maintaining our nurse patient limits to bringing in non-union float nurses from elsewhere in the system. If our patient limits were removed or weakened, uh it would stretch nurses
thin, increase burnout, and make it harder to keep experienced nurses at the bedside. We are fighting to keep our patients safe. We need the community's support. Um, so I urge you to vote in favor of this resolution and stand with
us in calling for a fair contract that protects patients here in Greenfield. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> The next person is Daniel. Oh boy. everyone. Um, uh, thanks for the opportunity to speak. U, my name is
Danielle Peek. I know some of you. Um, I'm also a registered nurse at, um, Bay State Franklin. And I just want to build on what, um, Stacy shared by talking about what happens when hospitals don't invest in our local nurses. Um, nurses at Bayate Franklin are paid, um,
significantly less than nurses at nearby hospitals um, and really, uh, throughout the region. Um, at the same time, we're concerned about Bay State's proposal to rely on that float pool of those non-union uh your nurses. These are nurses who are not familiar with um our
patients, our hospital, or the unique needs of a rural community like ours. Um, at Bay State Franklin, we don't have the same support services um as larger urban hospitals do. Um, our nurses uh step up every day to fill those gaps and
provide uh expert comprehensive care. Um, and when I say they step up every day, they really do. Um, that kind of experience and commitment can't be replaced by temporary um, staffing models. Um, Bay State's proposal would undermine our rural uh, nursing care
model uh, leading to gaps in care, more safety risks and a strain on our current nurses who we adore. Um, a fair contract will preserve our nurseto patient limits without undermining care. It will make sure we can recruit and retain nurses.
It will ensure that people in Franklin County can continue to receive highquality care close to home as um rural hospitals are closing nationwide. Um I've worked at Bayate Franklin for the past 4 years and it has been an incredible experience working in the
community in which um I live. Um having previously commuted from Greenfield to uh Keen for my previous nursing job. Um, so caring for my neighbors is of great value to me and I want to continue providing safe quality care to in the
town that I really have come to love. Um, and uh, we appreciate your support and respectfully ask that you vote in favor of this resolution. >> Thank you. I'm sorry. It's okay. It's okay. All the time. Okay. Um, Suzanne
Love, >> thank you. So, I don't live in Greenfield, but I work in Greenfield. I've worked at this hospital since 2008. I started as a student nurse, and I've been there as a registered nurse working in the emergency department since 2009.
Um, I really value the job. I really value the work that we do. And I think that keeping it local and keeping it people who know the community is really important. Um, we bring in travelers.
They come in for a 3-w week, a 3-month time period and they get to know the population well. Someone coming in here and there just would not as well. And as the as my co-workers talked about, um it's very different working in a rural
setting than it is in a big city setting. And Springfield really is a big big city hospital. Um I mean that there's one time someone of our regulars came in we even can hear the EMS report and can usually figure out which regular it is and get some some things ready for
these people who we see on a regular basis. Like one person I know, anyone who had peanut butter in the last 3 hours cannot go in that row because she's that allergic and we just know this about this person and that is a real value. Um there was one time I had my back to the doorways. I was providing
care and as it went by I heard the patient say, "Oh, there's Suzanne recognizing me from behind and just as they know us, we know them really well." So again, I don't live here, but I work here and I care for your neighbors. And
um I think it's really important that we be able to keep the nurses who work here able to afford to work here. Everything's going up. We need people to be able to afford to keep the jobs here in Greenville. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our camera is not on. Thank you for
saying that. Sorry, there's a lot going on over here. >> Yeah, that's what Carol just told me. >> There we are. Hey everyone. >> All right, the next person is Susan McGaff.
>> Good evening. My name is Susan Warft. 7:45 Forest Avenue and I'm a member of the coordination team for Housing Greenfield and thank you very much for allowing me to speak tonight. Um for the last year, councelor Garrett and I have been working to develop the rental
registry ordinance that you have before you tonight. Um there's also um some additional information that I've given councelor Gollet that you I hope you look at. Um during that time we have spoken with the health director, the assessor, landlords and other relevant
officials to ensure that we are putting together something that is useful, valuable and doable. The ordinance before you is the result of that consultation. The >> it appears that I didn't cancel the law. >> Okay. So that that's okay. I my I'm not
that that's not that long. The idea of this ordinance came from an initial idea from housing green fields. We wanted to ensure that all tenants in Greenfield had an understanding of their rights. We went to various agencies in the city and found that no one had a complete rental
unit list. Uh the health department, building inspectors, the assessor, the fire department, and the police all had lists that they used, but there was no common list which included all concerns or violations or just basic information like how many rooms an apartment had.
This was more than a cause of confusion. It meant that the city as a whole did not have a full understanding of the number and types of rental apartments within the city limits. To begin to get a handle on this information, Housing Greenfield applied for and received a small grant which
allowed us allowed us to do a door-to-door survey of several key downtown areas which had concentrations of rental properties. using a list provided by the assessor's office rental pro um there we found that there were rental properties that were not on our
list. Uh we identified those properties through looking for multiple mailboxes and electric beers. At the same time that we were doing the survey we also discovered that the condition of some of the rental properties was questionable and should be checked for safety. Our
present system of dealing with health and safety concerns was to wait for our present system was to wait for a complaint to come to the health department or the building inspector or the police. But there was no proactive system to ensure that rental housing was generally safe. We then researched what
other towns and cities were doing on this issue. We looked at large cities like Boston and Los Angeles and communities close to their homes such as Ammerst, Hadley, and Northampton. The document you have before you is the culmination of that research. Our goal is that the rental housing in Greenfield
be safe for everyone who lives within it and that all relevant city agencies have a common understanding of where those rental properties are and that they meet a common standard. Councelor Garrett is ill today and unable to attend this meeting. I will endeavor to respond to
your questions tonight and if I'm unable to do so, I will do the necessary research and get back to you quickly. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Is there any anyone put their names in the chat? Okay. So, seeing no names in
the chat, close public comment and there are no public hearings tonight. I'm going to go in the going to go in the order of the agenda. I'm going to take the the only change that I'm going to make is to discuss the
rental registry before we discuss public assemblies. But the rest of that I'm I'm going to take order. So, can someone read the motion on page? And just so folks know, if you don't have the agenda, that means we're going to we're going to vote on one appointment. Then
we're going to um discuss the resolution in support of the nurses. Then we're going to discuss the um zero emission first vehicle policy. Then we're going to discuss rental before we discuss all the other items on our agenda today.
Okay. So, can someone please read the motion on page seven? Order number fiscal year 26087 city council order city of Greenfield, Massachusetts. Um the city council moved that it be ordered that the Greenfield
city council pursuant to charter section 210 affirms the following reappoint by the mayor to the board of registars of voters Eva Carrier for a three-year term to expire April 30th, 2029. Majority
vote required. Second. >> Any discussion? Just gratitude. Okay. All those in favor? >> All right. So, five yeses. Thank you.
All right. Can someone please read the order on page nine in support of the resolution? >> Order number FY26-119. The city council moved that it be ordered that the Greenfield City Council approves the attached resolution titled
a resolution in support of the nurses of Bayate Franklin Medical Center. Majority vote required. Should I read the resolution out loud or can we assume everyone has read it? >> Yeah, we can read it. >> Second discussion.
>> Um, I thousand% support this. Thousand% support the nurses. um really want you to get a fair contract. Slightly confused about why this is coming before this committee >> because commu community relations is not meeting until after this um council
meeting and we want to um councelor Brown asked me therefore if we would hold this an ANO so that we could pass this >> um as soon as possible in support. >> Great. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Any other discussion?
just my gratitude for thanking you all for organizing to keep our community safe. It really really really matters what you all are doing and just really grateful for you for organizing. >> Thank you. >> Sorry that you have you're going through
all >> exactly right just happened and here we are again is a bummer. It's like this shouldn't you shouldn't have to but thank you >> and thank you for educating all of us as well. >> Yeah. >> Very helpful. >> Yeah. Okay.
Any other discussion? >> Okay. All those inter. >> Yes. So you're free to stick around and for your entertainment purposes. We're going to talk about a lot of entertaining things but uh no need if you don't want
to. Um okay. So that will and that will go and that'll go to full city council at the next full city council meeting which is next Wednesday. Yeah, we'll be there. Great. >> Great. Thank you.
>> All right. So now um we're going to discuss the uh zero emission first vehicle policy. Council Mandlesi, do you want to join us? Sure, I'd be happy to. >> So, for folks who are attending, um, and
thank you, Director Collins, for being here. Um, I I occasionally invite people who are experts on a given motion to come and join us to answer questions and be here. So, thank you for taking the time
to be here. Um, and thank you, Mark. Do you want to introduce Mark to all of us? >> Sure, happy to. So Mark, thanks for being here. Um, Mark is the green communities person for the Commonwealth. Um, the person who was Western Mass has
retired. So, uh, Mark offered to come to the meeting instead and answer some of the questions. And thank you, Carol. Um I know this has been part of the discussion at the SGIC um and other places and Greenfield was
one of the first uh or were we the first green community? We were the first green community. Thank you very much. >> The state >> in the state in the entire >> Commonwealth. And so the that that brought with it some goals for um
climate change and reduction. And the state rolled rolled out a new program a couple of years ago called climate leader. And that was kind of an update of decarbonization from green communities. And so there are five
things that a community has to do in order to be a climate leader. Um, one of them is to be a green community in good standing. Woohoo. We did it. Um, I'm not I'm trying to do this all from
memory, so I'll do my best, but um having a road map for decarbonization. So, Greenfield has put together um a few different documents. Uh, and Carol can correct me if I'm wrong, but I I think there's maybe just a
little bit of tweaking, but we've got some some good good pieces and Carol's done a lot of work on this. So, the the work is already in in the works. Um, there's a building stretch code, um, the stretchier code as some people call it.
Uh, so it's kind of future buildings. Um, it doesn't apply to current buildings. um zero emission policy and then you have to also have an implementation committee. So we have greening green
field and we also have the SGIC. Um so one of those two committees uh can fight it out of which one wants to be our implementation committee. There's pluses and minuses for both. So I don't want to presume um because they're both wicked
busy. But the zero emission policy is kind of our our next step uh to be on this pathway. And what I want to let folks know is that the state has set
aside and make I think it's $50 million. So they're anticipating like 50 green community or climate leader communities. So 15 have already passed um including Shootsbury last week and Warwick. Um Ashfield is a green
community. So is East Hampton and I'm trying to think the other ones in Western Mass, but um okay. And Shootsbury was Ashefield was the first in Franklin County followed by Shootsbury. So we're
in they beat us even though we were the first. So um but what I what I wanted to do is just a little bit of urgency because there are 35 other communities that have started the process on climate
leader. So that would plus 15 means $50 million gone. So, if we become a climate leader community, there are grants up to a million dollars for a demonstration project. And there's also $150,000
available for consulting money. Um, so that is just the background of why this particular ordinance um at this time. And uh Carol, correct me if I'm wrong.
you're already keeping a list of all of our vehicles and have been looking at um how we green our fleet anyway. So, this isn't a huge stretch for us. But I'll I'll stop talking and if you folks have
questions and Mark and Carol, please jump in and answer the things that I don't know, which is a lot. >> Yeah, Director Collins. So I would just like to add or or or add some more detail regarding the zero emission
vehicle policy. It is something we already follow. We now have five fully electric vehicles and all the next planned ones will be all electric as well. In the passenger vehicle,
light to medium duty vehicle categories. We have to have a fleet electrification roadmap for the climate leader communities and I have that and we're still putting a few finishing
touches on it but um that has a plan of a replacement plan for all of the city's 235 vehicles to replace them with clean energy versions. And so adopting this
policy is is basically putting into official words what we're already doing. And and I probably could have built the space shuttle to art the Artemis 2 easier with
a working bathroom than it took to install the fast charger at the police station. But if you ever get a chance, it's the most beautiful machine. It was so so so difficult and that is still a challenge. If I may add maybe one more
paragraph it's never been a lack of will to do you know EVs. It's been that the availability obviously cost was a factor buyin is a huge factor and and infrastructure is still going to be a
challenge at our older municipal buildings such as what we just dealt with with the police station. and there was no available electricity there. And um it was a minor miracle and we had some really great people that that I
cracked the whip all through the harsh harsh winter and they were up there digging away and um but what we have now which is amazing and it makes this so much easier is just the the the market has exploded.
There's so many more vehicles available that meet all different types of needs. And now there's a very robust second like certified pre-owned market where we can actually purchase vehicles that need no maintenance that are basically brand
new that are still under warranty and they're even less than than you know gasoline counterparts. So, um, if I may add just one last statistic, just just so people know, in in 2025,
the usage of our fleet was 95,000 gallons of fuel. That's both diesel and and gasoline, which equates to 900 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. So, we have a lot of opportunity here and it's just
I'm I'm just very excited that we're in a place now the market is there that we can actually push this through and and and make it reality. And um it doesn't mean any of it's easy, but it's it's definitely I'd buy cars all day long. That's probably one of the easier things
I get to do. So, >> thank you for indulging me. And uh thanks Mark, too. It's great to see him. Thank you for being here, both of you. >> Thank you, Director Collins. Um, we just really appreciate all the work that
you've put in. You know, this is really just codifying what you're already doing. So, we appreciate that. And thank you, Mark, for being here. Do folks have questions for >> Yeah. I I just want to contextualize the conversation based on what I'm hearing you say that um so we to pass an
ordinance typically our cadence is that we have at least one discussion to uh to hash things out to bring up any questions that we have and to get responses to those questions at least one. And then sometimes it's more, but
then when we feel ready to uh vote on it, we have a hearing uh we have a hearing here and then it goes to the full council. So I haven't done so this is actually with like your permission as counselor and you may not be as as council president
and I don't know if you're able to answer this but I think something we might aim to do which is not typically what we do. we try to flesh things out here, but given the given the urgency of passing it, I think I still have a bunch of questions, but they're not to the same extent. Like I'm a stickler for
implementability. What I would like to do is see if we can hash all those questions out both here and in the next month so that we're ready next month to actually bring it for a hearing. Typically, we would have another discussion next month and then do it for a hearing, but it sounds like there's 35
spaces. You following me? I see you. And so I think I I typically like it all fleshed out. We have the language, then we have the hearing next time. But I think I I think that we can hash it out and bring it for a hearing next time if we if we really work it in the next few
months, weeks. So that's my that's the aim I'd like us to hold. How does does that work in terms of the full council? Are you able to answer that? Is that what you would also like? >> I I would. >> Okay. Okay. So then let's aim to do that together. Okay. Does that sound good?
Okay. So, that said, like as you know, I meant like I like things to be as implementable as possible when it comes out of here. So, I know we had a lot of questions last time. I have a still have a bunch of questions today. Um, but I
would like others to go first with your questions and maybe ask similar things that I'll ask. So, whoever wants to go >> three three things. The first easy one on page 12 under guidelines it says vehicle procurement electric first
procurement vehicle procurement should be prioritized as follows. >> Can you can you direct us? I'm also >> I also have a Google doc so I'm trying to keep notes there so that I can >> and sometimes the track changes under guidelines
>> guidelines under guidelines. >> Yeah, >> just the typo needs to be fixed. Can you say that again? Because I'll I'll write this in. >> I don't know what it's supposed to be. It just says procurement two too many times. >> It probably I'm guessing should say electric first vehicle procurement
should be prioritized as follows. >> Okay. >> So take out the word procurement between electric first and >> Okay. >> The second question um you said that we would >> actually hold on a sec because I'm I'm to make this easy for everyone. I'm
trying to write them. Yeah. And maybe that might not be possible, but I but I don't want you to have to go back and do it. So, just can you bear with me one sec? So, under guidelines. Okay. I'm looking for
which uh which page of the resolution is it? That might help. >> Do I? It's on the second page of the resolution. >> Resolution in the middle. under guidines applicability go to guidelines. Do >> you want me to just take notes?
>> Yeah, take notes separate from me. And I'm realizing the Google doc that I thought was the most updated is not the same that's in the packet. That's my fault. So that so yeah, >> and the packet might not have gotten the edits that I >> Yeah, I don't think that the packet has
updated version because what I'm seeing is different. It doesn't. It's good. Yeah. So the is the Google doc the most updated version? >> Yes. And I did not because I didn't want to presume. So I didn't forward the >> okay >> the version to Kathy because I didn't
want to over >> So that typo doesn't exist in the latest version. >> Great. I'll write it down anyway. >> Um be good to and a lot of those questions were probably answered but happy to reanswer them. So, just a
request for Tammy to make sure that whatever gets into the packet is always the most updated version from counselors, please. Thank you. >> Um, the money that we get from being a climate leader community. You said we could get up to 150,000 for consulting.
I feel like we need an implementation budget. We have plans for days. Is that part of something that is worked on in this? Like, do we get implementation money? So I I would let um Mark answer that but that's up to the committee that's working on the climate leader. So
they would come up with the the kind of roadmap. Okay. >> Um so uh a few things. There's there's $60 million that has been set aside um uh for the climate leaders program. um
52 and a half of that is for the accelerator grants and seven of half seven and a half of that 7 and a half million is for the technical assistance grants. So once you become a climate leader you're um you're able to apply for uh up to $150,000 towards technical
assistance and then a million dollars towards um an accelerator or implementation grant. Um the and the idea being that we we wanted these are likely complex projects. The the million-dollar projects could be a
geothermal system, a solar um uh PV system on a roof, and you might need technical assistance in order to to do that. um for in terms of of uh like decarbonization or
implementation plans. We we do have uh another some other funding set aside um for uh for for plans. Um and we have we have uh we can um assign a technical
consultant to you to develop a plan um with you a decarbonization plan um that you can then use to apply for the the climate leaders program. I don't know if that answers your question, but um that's that's kind of how we're we're setting things up right
now. >> And um the last question I think is for uh Director Collins. Uh I read through it and I just wanted to get in easier brain terms like it's we're not
going to run into a financial issue where we have to buy like a fossil fuel car and then it kicks us off. climate leaders like there's more than enough stock available to meet these requirements with the budget constraints we have coming up.
>> I hate to make a blanket statement. I um but the way I interpret the policy and I've reread it several times and and Mark can actually clarify this I'm sure but it's it's that we make every attempt to get a zero emission vehicle first as
available. And one of the things with the market it is it I don't know volatile is the right word but you know like my dream I'm still waiting for my two dream cars and one of them was supposed to come out like 3 years ago and then it you know they went bankrupt and then the other one is available like
everywhere in the world but here. Um, so we're we're somewhat at the mercy of the market, but I still think that and and Mark, this is where uh please please chime in, but uh I I don't think we would jeopardize ourselves if there was
nothing indeed available that meets uh the zero emission vehicle. I I mean, when we get into the larger vehicles, I I think it's kind of the same thing, right? that we are not >> Yeah, sorry.
>> Please. >> Um the the policy only applies to vehicles that are 8,500 lb and below. Um which doesn't mean a lot to a lot of people, but uh >> it does to me. >> You know, you don't lift up a lot of vehicles, I imagine. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Um but 8,500 lb is is about uh F-150, a Ford F-150 and below. Um so anything over that like garbage trucks you know like any F250 would be above that um the
policy doesn't apply to um you mentioned future um financial considerations and and we do address that in the the guidance document. Um saying that uh you know we don't have money to to to buy this vehicle right now is not something
that we would we would consider. um we wouldn't accept that as as a reason not to buy a zero emissions vehicle. Um uh but if something's not available, then yeah, that's that's a good reason for it if if there's just nothing on the
market available. Um, but I I really think probably every municipality can make the um can make the argument that they they don't have money this time around, but it's it's part of being a climate leader is is to lead and to to um to purchase the vehicles when that
when they are available. Oh, also I should add that um you know through green communities through the green communities grants you can still get funding which I know Greenfield has before um towards battery electric vehicles as well. So um just being a
green community uh there's there's ways to get funding towards those vehicles and you know you don't always have to purchase them too. Leases are available. I don't know Carol if if you've taken advantage of of a lease through it but yep. Thank you so much.
>> Oh, Director Collins. >> Yeah, I just want to um tack on to what we we don't lease vehicles. Uh that has been done in the past, but we're not doing that currently. >> But um I would say that I was hesitant initially with the Z the policy because
of the cost factor and it was prohibitive for the city. And again, the thing that really puts me at ease is is this, like I stated, there's just, you know, just look, honestly,
it's hard to make an argument not to get an electric vehicle when you start looking at the, you know, what's what's out there that's used 2 years old or, you know, it's it's just amazing. And and that just brings that that price point way down. and the fact that it's less than 8,500
pounds. That's it. All of those things are I don't anticipate that changing and and we've got it. >> Yes. Williams. >> So, in terms of the categories, I understand I'm not very clear on the
weight classes, but obviously uh trash collections not included. A lot of the the vehicles of the DPW would not be included. But uh what about police cars? Would police cars be included in this
category? >> Police vehicles will be included when they're um when they're available um when they're when they're broadly available. So, and that's this that's how we've been working with our our fuel efficient vehicle policy. So, in order
to become a green community, communities have to adopt a fuel efficient vehicle policy which has to meet certain miles per gallon. Um, and we've had in there since uh green communities um uh first came about, which was in 2009, that once
once vehicles are available that can meet this policy, then we're going to enforce the policy. And we still haven't enforced policy for police vehicles. Um, and that's even for we we came really close a couple years ago for hybrid electric vehicles for enforcing the pol enforcing the policy for police to
purchase um hybrid electric vehicles and we backed off on it because um uh we heard feedback that um uh uh police departments were having trouble with the the hybrids that were out there. So we said, "Okay, if they're still not up to
their standards, then then no." Um but if there is a a day when um you know uh electric vehicles become the norm for and there there is a really good option I shouldn't say the norm but there is a really good option for electric vehicles
then it potentially will be but it's it's not um you know we we we would still leave it up to the the um the police in which vehicle they they want to purchase. There are there are uh um there is a uh
GM makes a um a Chevy Blazer that can be outfitted as a police vehicle now and it's it's I think there are a few options out there, but um I wouldn't say that it's it's well available out there >> and we already have a police vehicle,
the TV. >> We do. >> We do. And also in looking I just looked through the revised language and I like I really uh you know was was worried about this being implementable and I'm looking at
the difference between the Google doc and what's actually what's in our packet and I search for the word available and I can't not 100% certain but I my sense in looking at the new language is it really is reflecting what Mark was saying that it's really about if it's
available. >> And the word in there is practicable, >> right? >> Um and that's sort of kind of our out if we if there is not a vehicle that meets what we need. >> Yep.
Councelor Williams and then Council. >> Okay. So, the reason I raised this is because I know that one of the budget issues that's coming up is the need for police vehicles. Yeah. Now and then the question I have is does it
could this would that million dollars be available for that? >> Could I purchase add to that? Like I we've the citizens academy talked with Dodge about the also like the fuel
efficient cars that they have and they're >> over budget by like 40,000 on maintenance of the fuel efficient vehicles. That's not the EV they just got, but the fuel efficient vehicles. And so I'm also wondering if we can
address that part. But yes. >> Yeah, that's why I'm asking. I mean, I it it sounds like there's a series of steps of committee this and that that have you have to go through in order to get the money, the million.
>> Yes. Right. I I don't know if a police vehicle would be a good demonstration project that helps us to >> Great. >> I was just putting it out there. Um >> Okay. >> But there >> I'm trying to I was trying to resolve a budget question.
>> Well, I think there's I think there's Did I hear right that there is money through green communities to help buy electric vehicles which the police use for their current electric? >> So, there is money right now. Yes. available to do some of that purchasing. >> Yes. For green communities and we are
one. >> And we are one. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. It's it's a it's a set amount of money. Uh Carol, I think you're a climate um especially eligible in this in this. >> We were
so >> we actually got 30,000 toward the lightning. >> Oh, that's right. >> Purchased which was fabulous. And and we're eligible for the state incentive. So that was kind of a surprise at the end. >> So it wouldn't cover the the full amount
of a of a police vehicle, but it would it would be money towards that. >> And it's available roughly I I mean I guess it's not official, but it's like every two years. So we just got it this past year. >> Yeah. You can't have more than one green
communities grant out for for the competitive grant. So you'd have to complete that grant before you apply for the other one. Um, nobody has requested uh vehicles through the accelerator grant yet. I think they have larger projects in mind. Um, I I would I would
need the the the question through um the means of of combis before I would answer that. I wouldn't be able to answer it over here. >> Yeah. I mean, I think the other thing to keep in mind is an electric vehicle has
almost no maintenance. So, you're not doing oil changes like all the other stuff. It's it's a much cheaper car to maintain, but it's more expensive on the front end, >> right? >> But because of the market, there's so
many more coming uh onto market for used cars. Even after a year or two, the price has dropped in half. >> Oh, okay. >> Good. >> Which is really helpful. >> Okay. >> Well, and especially considering the price of gas. >> Yeah. right now. I mean, we know it's bad here. I just came from back from
Arizona where it's over $5 a gallon. So, the more we can get the city off of needing to buy however many hundreds of thousands of gallons of gas, the the better. Um, I think I'm curious to dig into like I
don't want to go too far into the weeds, but like the the word practicable does seem to be doing a heck of a lot of work there. And I'm curious, Margaret, I will admit it made me a little nervous to hear you say that u you know cost is not a good reason for us not to get a
vehicle, but availability is because of course those things work very much in tandem, right? And like uh if availability goes down for whatever reason, even if we don't expect it to do that, prices will go up and you know our
tax revenue isn't going to go up. And so like I don't want us to get stuck in a place where like we just can't afford it, but we've, you know, gotten ourselves committed to having to spend whatever amount of money in order to be able to get one of these
vehicles. >> Yeah. I I think generally where you're going to see this enforced are if there are um if there are common vehicles out there that you you would be able to purchase. We're not going to say >> um you know that you know there's a lot
of small electric vehicle companies like one-offs that were that were coming out um for a little while. Um we're not going to say you have to buy this one from like when when Tesla first started or something. We're not going to say you have to go out and buy like a a a Tesla
in that manner. Um, but if if something's being offered by by GM and and it's it's a common vehicle that could likely be purchased off of the state contract and that that's more likely going to be enforceable in this case. Um, and that sounds more practable
and and you're right, it is doing a lot of work in here, but we didn't, like I said before, really every community could make the argument that we don't want to spend this much more um because budgets are tight because budgets are always tight. Um, so we did have to have
some language in there saying the um the financial factor isn't going to be a reason to kind of get out of the policy. >> Got it. So it it's basically like if we were buying a vehicle anyway, if you saw us buying a vehicle that you know might
cost a gas vehicle that might cost a little less than the electric equivalent, but you know that the electric equivalent is widely available, then that would be on us for, you know, not having made the right choice on that. But like if it's hundreds of thousands of dollars more,
that's a different story. >> Am I getting that right? Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. >> And really, I mean, for light duty vehicles, >> almost you're you're going to be able to find um a light duty vehicle that could really meet all of your needs right now. I don't think you would be able I can't
think of a of a need that you would have that wouldn't be met by something that's already out there on the market. >> Dr. Collins, you have >> I was just going to add, you know, say what what Mark said. the the only class and and again because the market's
constantly shifting is uh like small vans. Those are kind of going away. But I still think again we're we're looking at cars that are what would be considered like passenger vehicles. So there's an abundance across the spectrum.
And I think again that you know I had pause before I don't anymore because of all of those things and the market. >> I think that I don't know how only if this is like doesn't take hours and hours of your time but I imagine that
there could be that it could be helpful to have something in writing demonstrating like again I this isn't even as much of a request. I'm just thinking about presenting this to city council and the big argument is going to be about cost. You pro it won't probably
keep you back from passing it, but if there's some way some easy way to demonstrate like these numbers to council when when it comes forward and next month, it could strengthen the argument. But only if that's like easy
for you. What do what what comes up for you when I say that, Dr. Collins? Is that does that feel like there's is there anything that you would point counselors to to demonstrate the availability of these vehicles or
you're muted right now, Dr. Collins? You're muted. >> No, >> Dr. Collins, hi. You're muted. We can't hear you. >> Sorry about that. I mean, I've tried to to draft up different things and and when I'm
working with individual departments, putting together specifics for them and and options to kind of illustrate and then catching, you know, getting uh dollar amounts. I mean, with the fleet uh policy, it does have costs associated
with each of the vehicles that's being replaced. Um, but I don't know comparatively. I have no idea what they're called ICE, like what an internal combustion vehicle costs. All I know is that I saw an article, you can't buy a car for less
than $20,000 anymore. So, I I know everything's super expensive, but I I can easily give you cost information on electric vehicles. >> Okay. Yeah. Or even that just in just if we could have that policy in the packet
like that would be helpful referential but you don't >> I I'm hoping we'll get the final version back and when's your count third third week what do we have that's next Wednesday right >> oh where no it'll be next month
>> all right I should be able to get that to you by then >> okay okay that would be helpful >> question I was just going to ask Mark if your department has done any cost comparisons between EVs versus um
and I know the market is changing rapidly so that makes it hard to keep it up. >> Yeah. Um I've seen some our department hasn't done it directly but uh through the utilities they have been offering um a service that had a consultant look at
your fleet and then make recommendations um based on that. Um, I will I will say that electric vehicles are a um a different animal because the the cost of ownership is so different too that you have to you you can't just take in the
purchase price um when you're looking at the vehicle because you have some you have savings o over time the the as I think Carol mentioned um sorry director Collins mentioned I've known her for a while it's hard to
um to to, you know, the the there's not oil changes. There's um you have you have gas savings traditionally. Um electric electricity prices are a lot more stable of a cost. I know they've gone up recently, but they're a lot more stable historically than than gasoline
prices are, which can be very rocky. Um uh electric vehicles may go through, um tires a little bit quicker because of the the torque. Um but but generally it's it's a um you have to look at the total cost of ownership, not just the
upfront costs for it. So it's it's it's um I I recommend not just comparing those two things. >> Yeah. >> Would it be helpful to get anything from Shootsbury who just passed this in town meeting which I think is harder to pass
than among 13 people. could hurt. >> Yeah. Okay. I'm talking about the longevity aspect of saving money is probably our best >> and and being able to plan. >> Yeah. Totally.
>> Yeah. Um the other the other communities in western Mass that have passed. So War Warick Shootsbury was mentioned um Pelum uh and uh Ashefield those are all towns but um East Hampton and Ammeris might be
at least somewhat closer to to Greenfield size in terms of fleet. Probably still not as not nearly as much but um somewhat closer. And those are climate leaders as well. East Hampton and Ammerst. >> Yeah, East Hampton was the kind of first
community I talked to because they're similar size to us. Um, and they did some really great stuff in being able to get a electric vehicle for police department pretty early. Um, did you have I have another
question, but you >> Well, I just want to make sure that we have in addition to getting electric cars, do we have the infrastructure to support that? I see there's six charging stations around town, but are municipal vehicles going to be required to use municipal charging stations? Are they
going to be, you know, are they going to, you know, like somebody from here could go to the police station and charge up, but could they go to stop and shop? you know, and that and the the the increasing gas prices, things like that make me wonder what is the availability of our municipal cars and individual
private cars. You know, are we all going to be competing for the same resources? Do we have enough electric chargers? And is there a plan to support any more considering that it was easier to get a bathroom working on the Artemis mission? I >> there's a lot there and it can go on for
quite a while but uh we obviously we we are well actually I I will just say there's currently >> electric vehicle that that DPW purchased. It's a used Nissan Leaf. Again, there's a lot of different layers
to this. Most of these vehicles are only being driven around town, so they don't need the 300 mile range that most of the new EVs come with. So, that's also an opportunity to get a really good deal. And it also then does not need to charge
a significant amount. So, you can use a regular grounded plug to charge and uh that's what they're doing. So, it it you know, it doesn't even need that. But we don't want my my biggest goal was to get the buy in was to assure any staff
person that has an EV that they had a dedicated charger. So we do have some chargers such as Sanderson Street is only for municipal use. And um you know the the one at the police station is supposed to be for police vehicle
charging so that they can expand. And it's definitely, you know, um, we do have a total, I think, of 20 charging plugs, they're called, um, and those are for public use, but, uh, as and I
forget, I'm sorry, I might be missing part of your question, but I, you know, so again, there's a number of options. There's three levels of charging, one, two, and three. And for a lot of the uses in town, like I said, a grounded plug might work, but that's the next
thing is the the fleet electrification study also includes an infrastructure plan of what we would need where and and one of the issues that like say, you know, where there are a lot of vehicles is the limitations of the
current electrical service. So it's it's a you know a much bigger undertaking than just adding chargers. But that's all being factored in. So that they're >> I assume that part of that is part of uh like downtown is included in the environmental justice area that we
should we hopefully will qualify for grants to get things like that downtown, right? It depends, but yes, when they're available that the the the money is always shifting and comes and goes, but so far we have never paid a dime for any
of our chargers. Awesome. >> And I'm interested in getting a level three um and >> a level three charger which is the fastest charger to to downtown and had some conversations at the MMA conference
with folks which >> you follow up with you director Collins about just circling in my brain about how we get a fast charger in downtown so people will sit there for 30 minutes and walk around
Greenfield. field. >> It's great. >> Well, they get their car charged. >> Fast charger would charge my 29 mile electric battery in like four minutes. Um, maybe you couldn't even plug it into um zooming out for a minute. Um, love
this. Definitely think we should pass it. Really hope we do. Thank you for all of the work that's gone into this. Um, if this is one piece of kind of the bigger picture of of meeting, you know, these criteria for the climate leader
designation, um, I know we already have a couple of the pieces, but like what else needs to happen for us to actually be able to submit our name and and get that and beat those other towns? >> You need to get stretchier. >> That's Yeah, >> that's my
>> Yeah, the stretch code is is would be the >> that's the next thing. the third tier of the stretch code. >> Like there's the basic and the stretch and then the stretch here. >> I'm going to turn this over to people who understand it a lot better than I do. Um, but I was on a webinar about the
stretch code and it it actually didn't sound as bad as a lot of people are making it sound. So, >> yeah. So, it it you're right, it is the third tier. Um, all communities, whether they like it or not, are on the base code. Um and then uh green communities
um you have to adopt the stretch code. Um and then uh a few years ago, three or four years ago, um maybe longer now, uh we implemented another code which was called the municipal optin stretch uh specialized code. And sometimes you'll
just hear it called the specialized code or the MUN optin or special stretch. And that's the third tier. Um, and that um there's there's more to it to make it to make it more energy efficient. I I could
we have I could talk hours about this about the the specialized code. Um, and I I do recommend if you're if you are going to um be uh hoping to adopt this um with with council then um to have
some meetings on it to get public feedback and and have experts answer it because we don't want any misinformation out there about it because there already is a lot of misinformation. Director Collins, we spoke like years ago, like three years ago or something like that about the stretch code. I'm
wondering if we can I would like to bring it like that that seems like a next step. Seems like an important next step. Uh do we have the language to bring that forward? Any update? Like we're going off now. I'm I'm going to pause myself. We're going off topic. I'm
going to put it on my to-do list to reach out to one of you uh about potentially bringing that that language forward >> that that we can easily grab and then I know I've had a separate conversation
with Nancy from Greening Greenfield um who's on the call also Bram Morenus um about how we do some public meetings to do exactly what you're saying Mark to make sure that we're all on the same
page we made a list of possible builders to reach out to who might be in support of stretchy codes. Um because we don't want also concerns folks working on housing to say this is going to kill housing in Greenfield, which it won't. >> Yeah.
>> Um and there's some really good studies about communities who have taken on the stretchier code and have not had any decrease in in building. >> I have a question, but I don't know. It's it's about stretch codes.
>> Yeah. And I'm not prepared to talk about tonight. Let's hold on. >> Yeah, we are. >> Do you have more questions? Do you have more questions? Do you have more questions? Do you have more questions? Okay, I have more questions. Um um
and I some of my thing I'm not I'm going to go through my questions myself and may not ask some of them right here because some of them are pretty mundane and needed. Um,
I guess I'm I am concerned about recycling vehicles. Like that seems like more I I want I want vehicles to be able to be used for the life of their use cuz creating a new vehicle can cost my in my
limited understanding can cost even more resources than making a new one. And I'm uncertain about the language. It says vehicles will not be recycled from one municipal department to another unless the recycled replacement is more efficient than the vehicle it is
replacing. That makes me nervous. Is there anything that you all can say to this? I think we tend to keep our cars until they're not operable any longer. But maybe Dr. Collins has another comment. I
I understand why you're saying like my my phones I keep on forever. >> Right. Right. until Apple slows it down so much. >> Sorry, I I definitely agree that we want to, you know, make wise use and and get as much out of the full life cycle cost,
but it's very rare that we do any vehicle recycling. And honestly, it's uh again, when it comes up by, you know, everyone's on board to find in this case, well, definitely it has to be more
efficient. So, we don't want to replace a car just because we have it with something that's like a gas guzzler when we can get something that that's very efficient. So, um I would say that it's a case by case basis and and all of the concerns you raise are definitely um
uh taken into account to come up with the best solution. >> Okay. I might just ask for that and like right now it says they will not be recycled. So, I'll bring this to you. We can talk about it. >> Does that have to be in there, Mark?
Because I mean, this is language from the state, you also. >> Yeah. Does it does it have to say vehicles will not be recycled? And I could share this. >> It's already in our current policy. That's been what we've been using >> the beginning. >> And honestly, those vehicles can be
traded in. And so that's typically what is done when you know we try to if a lot of times it might be a few different purchases so they can trade in some old jalapy. Sometimes they'll trade in like two or
three cars that are really at the end of their lives to avoid keeping something that's very inefficient in the fleet. >> Right. But it does market does have to say that they will not be recycled. Yeah, it it does. And and just a couple
notes on that. Um uh one, you mentioned the the life cycle of of a vehicle. Um vehicles about 70 to 80% of of the the life cycle emissions of the vehicle are in the operation phase, not in the the creation of the
vehicle. So, um, the the the vehicle is really creating the emissions as it's out there, not necessarily like through the the manufacturing process of of the vehicle. Um, in term as as it relates to
recycling, Carol's right, this is in the current fuel efficient vehicle policy that's out there right now. Um, and uh, we used to not have it in there. We used to say no, no vehicle recycling whatsoever. And we added the caveat that
if you're replacing a vehicle, if the vehicle that you want to recycle, the vehicle it's replacing, as long as it gets it has more a better miles per gallon than the vehicle it's replacing, then it's okay. So, if you had a um where we see a lot of recycling is with
police vehicles, they'll they'll have a police vehicle out there, they they kind of run it run through it, and then um for instance, they'll give it to the building inspector. And if if that police vehicle, say for instance, gets
20 m per gallon and the vehicle, the old building inspector's vehicle got 18, then that's okay cuz because it it has better miles per gallon. But if you're trying to replace if the building inspector's vehicle had 25 and you're trying like um bring in an old like an
old police vehicle that gets 20, then no, that can't happen. Um, and then the one another place that trips up a lot of communities is if the building inspector didn't have a vehicle at all and you're trying to give them a vehicle. Um, that can't be allowed either because that's almost like getting a new
vehicle. So, those are just some s some examples, some scenarios where you might want to think about this. >> Okay. >> But it doesn't mean that the vehicle wouldn't be like recycled into the market somewhere else. So, it's not like we have to throw it in the trash. not
tossing in the river when you're done or anything. >> Yeah. So, >> I think that makes sense. >> And it sounds like it's currently our policy. So, if you change that, we would be then going backwards. >> There's a there's a paragraph in here that I'm wondering if could just be
taken out or if there's a reason why it's dictated that this needs to be in here about uh basing things on the EPA and using the mass energy insight. like it just seems kind of informational and could be quickly become quickly
antiquated and doesn't seem like it needs to be in the ordinance. Uh I'm wondering if there's some reason that that has to be there. >> So the the EPA one is is where we rely on getting the um the miles per gallon
for vehicles. Um and that was also in the fuel efficient vehicle policy as well. Um it's the fuel I think it's fuel economy.gov. of um where the the MPGs are just listed on that vehicle and they're not a lot of those aren't even
done by EPA. Um really the manufacturer is is who determines what the um miles per gallon of a vehicle are. EPA will go in and and check some of those to make sure that they're not fudging the numbers or anything, but um that's why the EPA part is in there because it
references the fuel efficient vehicle policy. The part about Mass Energy Insight is um how we green communities keep track of the um which vehicles the community is purchasing. Historically, communities used to have to give us a list of all the vehicles that they were
purchasing. Recently, in the past few years, we've been working with the RMV to get that list so we know which vehicles the the communities are purchasing. So, that's why the part about Mass Energy Insight isn't there. >> Okay. And does it have to be does it ha
like that's helpful background about how you're implementing it. Does it have to be in the ordinance because it seems like those those websites may not continue to be relevant like things are changing so quickly. Does that have to be there? So, the um the
way that the the ordinance will or the policy will will likely be adopted is that um when a a vehicle is purchased, you have to look at the most recent policy that's on our website.
>> Um so, I I think I haven't read this in a little bit, but that's how the fuel efficient vehicle policy is written is that what um because our miles per gallon changes. So when when Greenfield adopted the fuel efficient vehicle policy back in 2009, the the our miles
per gallon um were much were much I guess lower back then and and through the years we've raised them. This policy is a little bit different because we're just saying you have to purchase zero emission vehicles. So there's no miles per gallon that would correspond to it. But really what uh any kind of
purchasing agent like Director Collins would have to actually refer to the most recent policy on our website. Okay. So, would you be willing to I'm still wondering if this needs to be in the ordinance. Would you be willing to take a look at this? Like I have a couple of
edityy questions to make sure this makes sense. And that's like I I to me this isn't the type of paragraph that would make sense because it could change like the law. It shouldn't be that they have to look at the EPA, but it makes sense that that's that's how it's implemented
behind the scenes. Would you be willing to just take a look at this and find out if if it's mandated that we include this or not? >> Yeah, if if you want to um if you want to submit something for review, I'm I'm more than happy to look at it. Um we we
generally ask them ask communities to adopt the the policy that's out there. And if if this part um is going to be on our our website, then it's it's it might be a moot point because you would always just re-referring to whatever is on our
our website anyways. >> Um but I'm more than happy to look at something if you have a suggestion or recommendation. >> Great. Okay. Thank you. And you have those email address bookmark. Yeah. Okay. Great. Yeah. I will send you this this Google doc with these these questions
now actually by the end of the night hopefully. >> I mean I will say like the EPA has been tracking this for a very long time so that has not changed in probably 30 or 40 years. >> Yeah hopefully that'll continue. >> It it will have to continue even if the
EPA gets to continue. >> Okay. >> Not to be a downer. Um, yeah, I don't need to ask any of my other questions, but >> if you do have questions, um, you just, um, put them in the email. I'm more than happy to answer them. >> They'll be in this docu. They're all
written in the document. So, yeah, thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you so much. Really appreciate you. Thanks both of you. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Bye everyone. >> Thank you. >> Have a good night. >> Good night. >> Bye. I
um could you would we would would you be willing to text me his email address so that I can check that off? >> Um I would have to get into my council email and then transport it to my text.
>> So when you're able >> Yes. if you could text me because I might not I'll be more likely to notice it then because I can easily forward it. >> Uh yeah, right now it's that would be really helpful if you
>> um Thank you. Okay, great. Do we need uh No, we're good. Okay, so let's discussed one of nine things. Yeah, >> seven things. Good luck. Thank you very much. Um,
let's go to the rental. If it's okay, I'm gonna I support the rental for doing it. I love it. >> Answer the question. >> Hello. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. No. Okay. Um, great. So, we
don't need to read anything. Um, we're going to discuss the rental registry. We may or may not have questions for you. >> Kevin, can you hand that out to everybody? >> This is kind of It's not a flowchart, but it's an explanation of who is doing
what in the city in relation to this. Um, it's three pages. Everyone should have three pages. Great. Yeah. So, we we talked about this a lot last time. I'm curious what questions are coming up in response to
the revised version, if any. I appreciate all the revisions that were done. Um, one thing this is the maybe nitpicky process thing, but um,
>> oh, where is my question? Gone. Um, in the registration and permitting section D under application process, >> y >> um, there seemed to be a couple of redundant pieces, potentially redundant pieces to
me, like um, so in in 1B, it says permits must be renewed annually and are valid until the issuance >> of the annual third blah blah blah. >> Um, permits will be assessed as part of the tax bill. And then in E
and one E, the property owner shall pay a fee of $30. Okay. Registration. Is the registration different than the permit? >> Uh the you know >> the the the registration
will the registration is annual. Okay. >> Right. >> And and and the per the permit No, they aren't different. They aren't different. And Okay. I think that that's something that needs to be rewritten to be >> okay. >> Clearer. >> Yeah. >> If those could be combined. >> Yeah. >> If they're the same thing.
>> Yeah. No, they are the same thing. It's it's it's >> um it comes from >> Now, I know this has gone through so many iterations like your eyes glaze over. Yeah. Um after >> That's fine. Y Thank you. That >> no problem. >> That is helpful to me. Um
good question. Mhm. >> Um, could you shed some light on why the police are a relevant department for the database? >> Because they often are called to go to um problem properties. >> Yeah.
>> And there are times when the issue is um you know that that uh there there are questions about whether the landlord has done something or the tenant has done something and there's a dispute. And what we're looking at is if you look later in the um in the ordinance, the
whole question of problem properties. If we've got a situation where there is a a continuing issue of disputes, then there has to be something that's that's dealt and that's that's the reason the police are involved. >> And the problem properties piece, I was
confused on how that lands between landlord and tenant and like if it's a noise complaint or if it's a it it all of those things. So, it could be anything from a noise complaint to a
serious, you know, the wiring the wiring doesn't work, you know, and the idea is that what we're trying to do is deal with either if there are landlord tenant issues, what are they? And let's let's figure that out and let's let's make
that h make it go away, make it better. Um, and if it's if it's a physical problem with a property, then we need to deal with that. And some and very often they are common. That that is the issue. And there are also issues around tenants not being the nicest people, too. And so
it's it's it's dealing with all of those places. >> So there's room for the complexity of it all. >> Exactly. Exactly. Another question that I have um is
like the building inspector has to inspect a lot of units every >> some number of years, right? >> In theory, >> right? >> This also would call for an regular health department inspection. How do those overlap like or what's the
relationship between those two? the actually the health department. The one place here where we actually have some coordination is with the health department and the business building inspector. And so um I think that the health department can work that out. If the building inspector has just been there, the health department doesn't
have to go unless there is something that's identified as a you know there's mold and which the building inspector recognizes but he's not going to do anything about but the the health inspector would go in. The the idea here is that if we can have a regular health
inspector who's not also doing 20 other things that we may be able to deal with some of those issues a little bit more better than we have right now. Um it's you know if you call up and you have a you know a problem maybe someone will be
out to see you soon. Um but it's it's it's a difficulty because we just don't have staffing. >> And remind me how we're fixing that. So the fees that are the fees that are in here are going to pay for the staffing and we have been we've we've asked for
Michael Harro to look at this four or five times now and said is this enough can you do it and and he says yes >> the fee and the salary for this new position we need >> that's correct that's correct >> and I have another question
sorry we received some public testimony >> Mhm. Mhm. >> Um, and I first I just want to if you could shed light on how this rental registry differs from the state
oversight of rentals and why it's important to implement this along with the already strong tenant protections we have. >> Um, the state registry does not give the city the information it needs very honestly. Um and they and that's been an
issue. And when we did our survey and we went out and we uh and I was on on that survey for part of the time um we found very quickly found places that were not on the assessor's list. >> So whatever the state is giving to the
city is not adequate. Um and and sometimes it's just a case of visually knowing whether something is a multif family or not. >> Yeah. So, so that's that's >> and sorry, I don't mean to like ping
pong back and forth. Um, and the state law like the enforcement mechanism for state law would basically be that a tenant would have to sue, right? like what >> what I I don't understand this question
>> like if if um state law has you know certain requirements of the way that landlords you know do the upkeep on apartments >> and they're and landlords are falling short >> right now is there any way in any enforcement mechanism other than tenants
take them to housing right so it would be on >> what we're hoping to do is to either have the city be the agency that deals with housing court because we have documentation that says >> this is this is a problem and we've got
to deal with it and we've tried to deal with it a number of times and this is what we've done or um it has to be the tenant who go who takes um landed housing court and what we're trying to do is take the weight actually off of the tenants and make it regularized and
make it something that people can count on. They know that they're going the landlords know that they're going to be inspected every five years. They know when that's happening. You know, this is not to this is not a gotcha. Um and on the other side, tenants know that if
they have a problem, they have somebody to call. But in the meantime, um everything should be working reasonably well. And it's for this basic stuff. It's for water and and and sewer issues and and uh and and making sure that um
everybody's electricity works. It's not for saying to someone you have to take out your knob and tube and put in breakers, but it is to make sure that if there's knob and tube in there that it isn't that it isn't sparking. That's that's the kind of thing we're trying to look at right now. >> Yeah.
>> And a lot of these houses have been converted in some very interesting ways. Um and um we're not after, you know, we're not going over after the fact to, you know, say, "Oh, this is, you know, this is this is a problem here." But if
it was a problem, if it is a problem now and was not a problem when the conversion happened, we want to make sure that that's taken care of. And there are landlords who are very conscientious and there are others who are not. And then there and there are tenants who are very conscientious and there are others who are not. And that's
that's also a piece of this Another question. Yeah, go ahead. Um, like if if there are issues that a health inspector would, you know, find fault with >> um that are actually caused by a tenant
>> or like, you know, the tenant says it's the landlord's fault, the landlord says it's the tenants's fault. Like, how does >> I mean, that that that's a that's a real that's a real question for Michael more than me. But the but the but the issue is that that's part of the
>> the reason for the housing inspector to go in is to figure out at least what's going on what's going on and is there a way to resolve it without going to housing court and to make sure it it it's done. Um you know part of the permit process is that whole question of
okay we know this place was okay in in in 2026. It's now 2028 and there's this problem. Is this normal wear and tear or is this a real problem? And I, you know, I've I've I've been a landlord. I I know
that, you know, that personally have had land uh tenants from hell, you know, and it's it's it's something that, you know, that that is a problem and we have to figure out how to handle it for so that everybody walks away with at least the knowledge that they were handled fairly.
And that's that's part of this. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Questions. Um so in here it talks about uh in the case of violations the city will provide persons in child with a checklist of violations to address within 60 days.
Follow-up inspection shall occur within 30 days after the period for addressing violations has expired and any remaining violations shall then be subject to fines. Uh are the fines listed in this? under violation on on page six.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Good. That's the only way they're going to fix it. Um I wanted to just back off of Rachel. >> So it also seems like having this rental
registry can protect landlords in the sense that last year, five years ago, this was and spam. There should be no reason that this leak is your fault XYZ. >> Right. Right. I mean it's it's fair for
both sides and it doesn't depend on you know someone having to complain because the other side of this is that um it puts you know I was it's proactive. I was I was talking with a landlord this morning about about
exactly these these issues. I'm curious what kind of feedback you're you've heard from the landlords that you're talking to. Um well, some we talked to and it was just this is already taken care of in state law. You really don't need to do that that kind
of thing. But um these small landlords, the one for instance I talked to this morning, um they're not happy. You know, they're they feel like they're already doing it. and some of the stuff they are already doing it. And so what this does is
regularize what they do. And so that's kind of like, you know, but then you know the they everybody's got everybody's got a horrible tenant story that they can give you that kind of makes it so that if you can't help me with this, you know, you know this is
awful. And one of the things that I suggested to this particular person is that we're gonna I I we're going to sit down with uh Joe Cmerford in late summer, early fall and and talk to her about some of the ways that the state
law doesn't work because usually the issues are state law because the state law was written for large um landlords that you know have hundreds of apartments and um and when you're when you're with a small a small
landlord. The issue is I'm just making ends meet here. I'm being a good landlord. I am, you know, I I don't I I don't charge big rents. And when this happens, then, you know, suddenly I'm I'm I I'm I'm in trouble. I got to pay, you know, someone does something awful
to my apartment and just, you know, knocks in the walls and everything and I end up having problems and I have to fix it and I have to pay for it and meanwhile I I lose rent, blah blah blah blah blah. So, it's a question of how do we deal with those kinds of questions in
a way that is more satisfactory than the way the state law handles them right now. So, that's that's one of the and he and I are going to do this. >> Great. Yeah, I'm really glad to hear that. >> Yeah. >> Um, does housing this rental registry in Greenfield and having Greenfield
represent like if there needed to be like housing court situation, does that lessen the cost of the overall process? don't think I totally understand like if it does come to like the tenant needs to or the landlord or whoever needs to take someone to housing court because it's
going through Greenfield and this rental registry would be cheaper than going through the state process. >> Housing Well, housing court is a state process. >> Housing court is >> housing court is yeah it doesn't matter the qu it's a question of who would be the representation and what that would
mean in terms of of dealing with the issue. Um we have we have had situations where there are multiple violations. One of the things that we found is that we have multiple violations but because we don't have a central registry
the the fire department knows about it but the the health department doesn't know about it and that kind of thing. And when we've got and we can get that all together then we can say this is a this is a repeat offender here >> regardless of which side we're talking about and let's let's deal with it. Um,
and you know, and that that's been a problem that we've had. >> Yeah. I'm just trying to make the argument that like if this is like if paying for the rental registry is like almost like an insurance like for the landlord >> to be paying for that to know that they're not going to get exorbitant
costs later on for dealing with a problem. But we we I mean we can't promise depending on what the problem is, but but what we can do is catch things maybe earlier than we've been catching them. And so if we've from the from the landlord's point of view, if
there is a serious problem tenant and we now have a list, you know, of of um of problems that have happened within the last year, that gives that gives us a way to be able to help work out the problem or to
to deal with it. Um whether it's from the landlord's side or from the tenants side and we don't have that right now. So this would make this would help with that. Yeah, sounds good. >> Another question. >> Go ahead. Go ahead. I'm ready. >> I just love talking to you about these
things. >> Um >> I guess I'm curious like from given that there are a number of landlords who are, you know, kind of like having absolutely >> understandably so. Y >> I'm curious if there's an aspect of like
the roll out and recognizing this is not on you, but you've probably had conversations about it. Um like if people are concerned about this is you know a burden it's going to take me a lot of time to deal with these requirements and I already am
overstretched you know like if if there's been thought given to like a cheat sheet of like here are the things you know that you have to because when I went through it it didn't strike me as like if they're you know in compliance >> especially after sort of the the initial
permitting there's It didn't seem to me that there was that much demand on them, but I that's easy for me to say because I'm not the person. >> Well, they do have to, you know, they do have to do their annual >> their inspection their self inspection. Um, but for instance, if we we we've
also we built in here in the first year a a kind of grace year. >> That's why part of the reason we want to get this done soon so that we can have that grace year. And um so at any time during that year they can have Michael
Turu or someone else come in and take a look at it and say okay this is this is where you know in a year we're going to have we're going to have an issue. So you know take a look at it now fix it now we can come back we can talk to you
let's let's let's make it work. So that's part of the idea is to give that grace year to make it so that that um they're they've given they're giving a running start basically in terms of making sure that things are in compliance >> and does Michael actually have time?
>> Well, he's hiring somebody soon. He has a grant and he's going to be hiring somebody soon. So part of part of the situation is that this money will come in just about the time that grant is over and so he'll be able to to continue with that person. >> Excellent. >> Thank you. Now will that person be the
one representing uh the city of court if it comes to that? >> I think that's you know that that's that's you know that's going to be something that that the city will decide based on the the issue. Um, I mean, we're we do that now on occasion, but >> yeah, it's going to cost like $100 an
hour plus to have the city attorney represent, >> right? Right. No, I you know, I, as I say, that's that's part of the way things work now, and that's not really part of of this ordinance as it's written. Yeah.
>> Yeah. I had so many I had so many questions about language when counselor Garrett first this and I'm >> like he's done a lot of work the last like two revisions of this. >> Yeah.
>> And I'm really grateful to him like it's I read it through today and I was really surprised at how like how few questions I had. Um the only thing was incredibly minor which I mean there was a couple of
like changes to just make it make more sense that I sent >> but um was just the date of implementation. It said May 1st and I'm like we're not going to pass this by May 1st. So that date needs to change but that's the it
says the notice of requirements for this ordinance will be sent starting May 1st. Uh and I am suggesting that that change >> okay >> because we won't pass it by May 1st. Uh, I think July or like if we pass it, it should just be >> Okay. Can you tell me where you're looking for?
>> I'm an L. I'm an L. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. >> That just >> Yeah. >> Again, very minor. >> Um, >> no, it actually says July 1st. >> It did. Yeah. >> The one that I had >> the one you sent me.
>> The one you sent me says July 1st. >> When I sent you, that's because I edit it without a straight without using suggestions. >> Okay. on the package. >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay. All right. All right. >> No, it says it goes into effect July
1st. The notices start being sent. >> Exactly. L1 needs to change. >> Okay. >> And I apologize that I said >> the notice of requirements will be start sent starting you said July. It said now says July 1st on it. >> Yeah. Okay. And I'm and I'm making this
edit in the document doc. >> I edit it. >> Okay. Okay. And then reed suggestion >> the requirements are sent out in June. >> Well, if the ordinance goes into effect
on July 1st, probably the notices should be sent out after that or the I mean the ordinance shall go into effect immediately, right? Like as soon as we pass it, it should be in effect, right? Yeah. So the the
ordinance shall go into effect immediately upon passage and then notice of requirements of this ordinance will be sent out. Will they be ready to send them out the first day of the month following the passage of the ordinance? Is that >> depend it depends on when the ordinance
is passed? >> Right. So like if it's will it be would it be would it give them enough time to have that like week and a half between the third Wednesday of the month when we pass it and the first of >> So so you're saying that that you expect the ordinance to be passed in June.
>> I'm saying I hope it's passed I think that we're ready to put it forward actually in May. It won't pass in I'm not bringing I'm not going to have us talking about ordinances in June. >> Okay because of the budget. Right. So, I'm actually hoping it's passed in May. >> Right.
>> I think that when given this conversation, I think that and I want to check in this thinking. Um, I think we're ready for a hearing in May. Now that I'm saying that, do do you all hear that? So, we're ready for a hearing in May. >> And therefore, it would be passed in
May. And so, the ordinance shall go into effect immediately upon passage. And then if that doesn't happen because we can't determine what the council votes, I just think the easiest language is notice of the requirements of this ordinance shall be sent >> on the first of the month following.
>> Okay. >> Month that's passed. >> Okay. Yep. Yep. Yep. >> Okay. And I'll write this into the Google doc to send the first of the month following passage. >> Yep. Yep. That's fine. >> We have other sort of like nitpicky
little things. I don't want to take your time with it right now, but what's the Should I email you and John? >> Yeah, email us and Google. >> And you're also on this. I I have a Google doc. You've looked at it. We can't share it with other counselors because that would create a forum. But you could also I'm putting things I put
your question about those two clauses up above and I said Rachel asked a question about these bring them together. So I would >> No one else can do that. >> I just have a more public facing question. um just with the the specifics
of like a landlord with six units or more or max up to 1,000 like all of that was created and crafted to meet the salary demands or it was cra it was I don't know I don't no it was it was it
was crafted um in relation to that's what Michael asked we had actually started with four units or more and Michael said six units makes more sense in terms of what his experience has been in an inspection. >> Got it. Okay. >> So, units like mine, my it's a house that lives three apartments won't even
be affected. >> No, no. >> But if your landlord owns Yeah. If your landlord owns multiple houses like once every 5 years, and that's how I like it. >> I Yeah, it's it's an ownership question. >> So, if if you have if we have because
we've got a lot of buildings that are small. >> Yeah. Um, but we have we have landlords who own multiple multiple buildings. So, for instance, the landlord I was talking to this morning owns eight. So, he's going to be impacted. Um, and
you know, we had that discussion. >> Um, probably would never work, but is there a way to put a clause in about not passing the cost on to renters? can't can't promise that, you know, um
they the cost of what we tried to do is make the cost low enough >> so that it would not even if it's passed on to renters, it's not $100, you know, it's it's you know, it's it's $30 a year and um and it's it should be possible
for the landlord within the structure of of um of of rental to be able to absorb that. And if not, if if it is does pass get passed on, it's passed on in increments of five. You know, that kind of thing. So, yeah, that that was our
idea is to try to keep it low incrementation of five. >> No, but I'm saying if it's $30 a year for the apartment, >> right? >> You know, >> less than $5, >> less than $5, you know, but but $5 a month or something like that. So, that it would not be
>> addition of the But is it $30 each unit >> each unit per year? 75 each unit every 5 years. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Up to a,000 for all. >> Right. Right. >> That's pretty reasonable. >> And we tried to make it
>> not burdensome but also enough to be able to make it clear on what was needed and to also pay for the fact that we're we hope to get another inspector in there. >> Yeah. So this sorry just this person who has eight units.
>> Yes. They're kind of in the middle. >> How are they affected financially by this? Like what's the math? >> The There would be now a fee for the eight units. >> Would be 30 * 8. Yeah. And then every five years 75, >> right?
>> And that still doesn't reach $1,000. >> No. Okay. >> And and and and the and the and the you know the 30 the $30 is not part of the thousand. Okay. that that's because that's just registering with the city, making sure that and and we do know that
they're unregistered buildings. So part of the part of this is to make it clear that there are that you can't get away with that anymore that you've got to register because that also affects the tax base and you know it affect you know so it's it's one that part of it is
let's make this regularized but figure it in as part of your your cost of doing business and you know and and and and make it you know a part of what you as a landlord does. It's hard to go into the human rights
business. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, this will this can I just ask will this be coming up at this uh council meeting next week? >> Not then. So, it won't be coming up until May. >> Yeah. >> Good enough. >> So, uh note to me to please put this for
a hearing for next month. Okay. um believe whatever is the most language that Tammy receives from counselor Garrett by okay
get that to him so he can deal with some of this >> thank you so we want to get a pause every two hours. Hasn't been two hours. Does anyone need a
pause? >> No. You're good. Okay. >> Stand up, but I'm here. >> All right. Yes. Okay. So, public >> public I linked the wrong document. So, I >> document.
Uhhuh. That's person. Okay. >> Uh all right. So, this is and counselor Brown, are you with us?
>> Hello. I've made it through. >> You're still here. Thank you very much for being with us. >> I'll be perfectly honest, there was definitely multitasking in it. >> Of course. Um, will we be able to see your face or not? >> Sure. Let me switch from phone to
computer and then I can get on my and that should be I'll do that quickly. >> Thank you. I like seeing your face. Okay. So, this is multi-arted. Um the first article one
uh was a revision that I wrote um with some support from Aaron Anel uh because she explained it. It's complicated but she's basically the head of the licensing department. I learned through
this process uh >> wondering why licensing mayor. she like leads the department. So there was not an appropriate department head. So um she was part of this process and
first was like two two aims. One I just I found the first version very difficult to even follow and understand. And so I first went through went one read and was like I want to make sense of this thing.
The next read was how do we make sense of it in a way that also the two was reflecting current practice because it was saying that the board of license commissioners would create all these things that they had never created um uh use policies. So
that didn't exist. So it's getting rid of that and then just tightening the language to also be in accordance with the first amendment and federal policy that supports the right to protest. Um and making it clear as much as possible
to what yeah right to protest. Um, in that in the uh as I was looking at this, councelor Brown had um suggested adding a piece on crowd control. And so that was a piece that councelor Brown
brought in. And um I will say for for article one um I I had shared this document that had both of them with Chief Dodge and I will say that he read over article one and
made a few typo changes. I can't speak for him but there were no large changes that besides typos that he changed from article one. Um and then article three is
um basically remaining as as is. Um yeah. So and councelor Brown is still like I think you're still thinking through uh
some pieces that you could speak to. You want to press say anything about article two? I would love to hear feedback from you all and also any members of the public about it if people catch this meeting. Um the feedback I heard from
Chief Dodge is that the use of tear gas is through this special response team which is countywide and with the sheriff's office. So it's not it would require changing anou internal policies
and he recommends that tear gas be limited in the same way as the other crowd control methods because tear gas is still less lethal and an intermediary step compared to use of a gun. So, um, his
recommendation is to, um, consider tear gas, not banan it completely outright, but it put it in the bucket of restricted use. Um, that was his most significant suggestion. And the other suggestion was um allowing a
caveat when there are warnings about um about these use of force crowd control method measures that as written it says 2 minutes apart for the first warning, 2 minutes apart for the second warning. And he's saying that in a riot situation
that there might not be that time and that um so to just add in a when possible caveat and then around enforcement just tightening up the language so that it's not redundant with the state police officer standard
training commission because that's where officer misconduct is already posted and filed. So those were his sorry if that's like doesn't make much sense. You guys have been in a really long meeting already, but that seems to be the main thing. Tear gas banning or restricting
is is the main like discussion for the public and for you all >> can go. >> Um, yeah. So, I my questions were if you're banning tear gas, like that
doesn't ban pepper spray, like that's still an option. And then second, is there like a regulation of when is appropriate to use these weapons and agents of suppression? Like
that's my next question. Like how do you decide when to use it? Um yeah, state law governs like excess use of force. So Greenfield's already somewhat covered regulated by that. And then this is just
adding in additional um protocols here about the supervisor on shift has to be the one to make the call and about giving warnings and whatnot. >> But are there like certain like red lines that constitute using those or
are they just up to the discretion of the supervisor? Um, I think the the GPD internal policy is has basically like a harm matrix of whether not using it is causing more harm.
>> Is section 217-9 has I think some of what you're looking for. >> Restriction >> restriction on the use of tear gas crowd control chemical agents is >> 2179. Yeah, it's on page 17 of the packet. >> Yeah,
>> I'm wondering if that answers your question. >> Well, this is the proposed language, >> right? >> You're asking about what the line is from the state, correct? >> Oh, currently. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I'm no I'm asking like with crowd control me I'm at crowd control measures >> and state like is councelor Brown mentioned the state policy and then you're saying well what is that lineage but >> I don't yeah I don't see my question
answered in here unless I'm not understanding >> no I don't think >> I think it's internal policy um documents and the state law and >> yeah and also just um 2179
C like the first step is deescalation but if that doesn't work >> I'm saying 2179 I'm not seeing a A B C I'm I'm looking that up everything. >> Oh, maybe this is the wrong one.
>> Uh >> Jesus Christ, >> it's on page 14. I'll >> Here we go. >> Um >> sorry, I was looking at the >> Yeah, >> Council Williams has in the language
that's on the books right now. >> Yes, >> there's no discussion at all about crowd control. No, it's an entirely new set article that councelor Brown >> Why is it here? >> Oh, councelor Brown is proposing this language.
It's an additional It would be an additional piece and I was just sharing that I was What's the motivation for as >> Sure. Yeah. The motivation was that in Somerville they passed this ordinance and DC also has a similar ordinance
about crowd control. Um and motivation is that tear gas is banned in international warfare. So why is it allowed for domestic law enforcement use? And also um with corona virus then
people are having more pulmonary and respiratory issues and tear gas can have lasting and even lethal impacts. >> Okay. But but but the language here allows it,
>> doesn't it? the proposed language >> on I'm looking at the proposed language on page four and its restrictions. So the use of tear gas by Greenfield Police Department >> shall be prohibited.
>> Shall be prohibited. Period. That's the end of it. >> Yeah. >> Exceptions exceptions and exemptions that there's >> there's there's currently no law. There's currently no green field law governing crowd control,
>> right? >> So all of this is new, new proposed language. >> There's two buckets. One bucket is to ban tear gas and then one bucket is to restrict and the restriction bucket is
the one that has um kinetic impact projectiles which are like little Nerf guns but more harmful. and pepper spray and and dogs and Dodge is suggesting to move tear gas into the restricted
bucket rather than outright ban. >> Has there ever been an incident of tear gas being fired in Greenfield? There has been an incident of tear gas being used but not as a crowd control method but last year there was um in the
case of staking out a I don't know how much detail I'm about to use but like staking out a house that um after many hours tear gas was used to have somebody come out of an attic. >> What did Dodge say about kinetic impact
projectiles and dogs? I'm wondering. And other chemical agents like those don't sound fun either. I want those banned. >> Exactly. >> I would. >> I don't want I don't want pepper spray. I don't want any of that. I don't want
>> I'll give you your pepper spray if we could ban everything else. But >> I I can say that because I did share this entire document with him >> and the things he said were he's wanting to include the words um when possible
and if possible and he says that although this sounds great 2 minutes is an extremely long time when things start to go south. There's no way to ensure this time frame under certain circumstances in this language will run up the city. >> That's what that's what he said. That
part makes sense to me. Um, I will say just because like in a chaotic situation, nobody's starting a stopwatch. Um, and I think that that the more that you specify that we specify things like
that, the the more it does open us up to just legal mess. Um, so I I am compelled by that argument. I'm less compelled by the argument that um but not totally uncompelled by the argument that you know if it's not this
then it would be something worse. Um I agree I don't want any of it and I understand why the police department wants tools. >> Right. >> Um and like the last thing I want is for their only tool to be their gun.
>> Exactly. Um, so again >> like pepper spray >> and also >> Yeah, honestly, >> but what do we need these? Like >> we're worried FCCPR is going to riot. >> Like >> Yeah, but
riot. >> I mean, nobody thought that what happened in Minneapolis over the last few months would happen there either, right? And it's a very different place than Greenfield. And I can't imagine situations in which this becomes relevant,
unfortunately. I hope it never does. Um, but I do appreciate councelor Brown, you bringing this piece forward because I think that it is important for us to name try to name at least some restrictions um and hopefully prohibit, you know, what we can.
Also, one more tool in GPD's just arsenal is tasers. So, that's something that is another intermediary before shooting a gun. >> People die from tasers, >> right? That also causes pulmonary distress.
>> People die from tasers. >> I think there's limited liability too because they have no way of knowing if you have had issues. I never even considered any of this stuff when I read the original assembly's public. I was just worried about people getting permitted and
making sure I never considered any of this at all. Um, >> happy 2026. I think another concern of dodges was just that if there is a rioting situation and a mob herd mentality
emerges and people are breaking windows of storefronts and there's a a scene like that then um tear gas would be the most like in a truly dire emergency situation like that. That that that would be something
where um it could even have liability implications for the police to not be able to use tear grass. >> Even if it's banned by ordinance, I would imagine that that should remove some of the liability issues.
>> Yeah. I think I'm not sure because clearly it passed in Somerville, but that was just his concern was that their um duty to protect property, life, and liberty or whatever it is. But >> you can take that to a lot of different extremes.
Yeah, I'm hung up on the tear gas not allowed in international warfare and then it's a liability for the police not to have it. >> Mhm. Yeah. >> It's 2026 and we don't have better
non-lethal options. >> Yep. Right. questions that need answers. >> I think that's a really fair question. >> Is it worth inviting to come and talk to us about this? >> No, I think it's pretty clear.
>> I I mean I I I think his position is clear. >> Yeah. >> I think we have to be clear on ours. >> Yeah. >> And I'm very hesitant right now around this. Um, and I apologize because I should have read it more carefully
before this meeting, but I did not. Um, well, this is our this is a we've had several discussions about this already. >> This is our first this is their first discussion of this article, >> right? So if you feel like you need more time, if we feel like we need more time,
>> I can discuss this. >> It's a question of how how the community wants to be policed. >> What' you say, dear? I'm sorry. >> It's a question of how the community wants to be policed. >> Precisely. >> And if the community doesn't want bees
in their arsenal, then the police are there to serve, >> you know. And frankly, I can't see Ellie May biting anyone. >> What did you say? >> I can't see Ellie May biting anyone. Have you met the dogs? >> They're sweet little puppies. Anyway, the point being is Yeah, I I need one
time on this actually. >> Okay. >> All right. >> So, then >> I'm also happy to come back next month or talk to anyone in between. I'm trying to reach out. I I am going to have a conversation with the Somerville
counselor who proposed this. So I will get some information from them and um yeah I think it makes sense to table and sit with it. >> Okay. All right. So this will come back for a discussion >> next month.
>> Y >> you you can share that. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Thank you for your work on that. >> Thank you. >> Huge amount of work. >> Yeah. Thank you guys. Good luck with the rest of your marathon.
We're having fun. Okay. Now, thank you. We are going to take a five minute break. >> Okay. Now this Uh-huh. It's like a star. Oh, I was just going
upstairs. >> All right. Good morning, everyone. >> Wow. >> All right. So, >> now page 35. Yes. All right.
This is not new. >> This is the idea of excess equity. Does anyone have any questions on this? >> I do have one which is if the ordinance needs to create some needs to state um something for the creation like the
establishment of the second account an account created solely for the purpose of maintenance of property seized under the tax title. Like I wonder if there's a clause that's needed >> establishing that. And I would ask like that's a legal question that I don't
know like you know throughout the code there's a lot of there's a lot of codes that are around like the establishment of the different boards and commissions. I don't know if that's required for this to it's more of a legal question. >> Uh I don't expect you to have the
answer. >> No I think this got I think this language went by Mandy and into legal already. >> Okay. like and that's that's what came out. Okay. Okay. >> All right. If that's the case, then
that's fine by me. I just want to make sure that it can happen >> and the account is already established for the tax fund. >> Can you just double check that before it comes forward for a hearing next month just to make sure? >> Sure.
So what's specifically what's the question? >> My question is it in order for that account says an account created for the purpose of maintenance that under two is it necessary to have language
establishing that account. I just I want to make sure that it doesn't need to and if it does like >> we can include we can >> include it and then I think it'd be ready for a hearing. >> Like I don't think we need to discuss
that one. So that's >> okay. I will run that by the folks. >> Thank any other discussion of this. >> Yep. >> Thank you. Do it right. Next thing
is >> and just to note I'm going to do a quick review of the work of the committee etc yada yada at the uh council meeting. >> Yeah. >> No, no
fun committee. >> Okay. Okay. >> And I'm going to rec and I'm going to and there are people to be recognized for their for their work that I'm going to make sure they get recognized. It's going to be very short and sweet. No discussion, no blah blah blah, nothing. Just this is a report. I'm just
>> I trust you >> doing that. >> Greatest. >> That's all it's going to be. >> That's great. All right, we ready to uh talk tag sales now? >> Oh, absolutely. >> All right, y'all read it. I'm sure. Uh,
>> basically, I don't want people to be surprised by holding a random tag sale and not knowing that they need a permit. Uh and I and I talked to the person who's head of licensing right now about this and it looked good with
her that uh like if somebody's doing a lot of tag sales then they need a uh but somebody's doing a random one once in a while. I think that's great. If it's your business,
there are houses that like have a tag sale all the time and >> like for the summer. >> Yeah, it's a seasonal business. >> I feel like that's a seasonal business, but the rest of this like Yeah, >> I want to have my
record. >> Yeah, exactly. Most people don't. And I don't like I don't want the city to show up. People didn't know this. So yeah, >> if you do if this does go through and get changed, which I'm sure it will, we should probably have at least kind of announcement being made so the people
who didn't know now that they they know what the text says. >> But they >> they don't need to announce that they don't that they >> no longer have to do something they didn't know they had to. >> Sure. But it's one of those things where it's like, you know, if you do have those tag sales, like it's just tag sales, see something. I mean a quick
announcement of council meeting be like this thing that we were all breaking the law on. Now we're not going to be breaking the law. >> Yeah. I mean we have to say it in explanation council but I don't want to require any city department to do any formal announcement. >> Well I can't
>> yeah any else it's great. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. So now this municipal payment agreements. >> Yeah. I I
need a Google doc to be I kept trying I tried to copy it like there were m multiple typos and just and to compare this language to what El Norman sent like I need more time. Um, who is bringing who brought this forward? >> The city. So, if you look at
>> uh Okay. >> Oh, Mandy. That's Ma the page prior from >> Well, that doesn't actually say >> I have drafted a payment agreement for the So, that means >> I think that's what this is and it says
bylaw. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, I think some of the concerns that we got by email are a desire for us to make explicit what is in state law. I don't think we need to do that. What's in state law is
in state law and we are governed by it. >> Yeah. >> And I like it's there. It's in the law. And that's worth naming because the same argument from the same person came forward wanting to like reiterate state law and
the ordinance that you're putting forward and we're saying no, we can reference it. >> Right. Right. I mean I appreciate like as much public information >> and education as there can be great. >> Yeah. >> But like that's a different thing to me.
Like putting it in the ordinance is also not necessarily great public education. like it just makes ordinances unwieldy to quote state law that then may change and then we have to update the ord and it's it gets messy. So I wouldn't do that. There was one other question that was brought up about um payment
agreements and and interest which I don't know enough about to have an opinion on. Um but it's I start the question for the person who drafted the ordinance
>> or the mayor's office like whoever you know is sort of tech bringing the ordinance forward. >> I mean the it seems I mean obviously the essence of it is to keep people in their homes. >> Yeah. >> Right. to allow a process by which people can pay down their taxes in a reasonable way
>> that there is a contract between the person, the resident, owner of the house and the city. >> You know, I think that's very important politically that we uh allow this. This is, you know, this is an anti- homeless
situation similar to the tax fund. you know, it's the same it's the same, you know, >> uh, intent behind it. So, I think it's crucial important. And I didn't even know she was doing this, but I'm very happy she has done this.
>> Questions were brought up on the timeline. So, like it goes up to 10 years. Amanda decided on five. >> Is the five thing. So agreement >> all I want for Christmas is >> all payments agreement shall comply with the following requirements. It's
paragraphs one to all payment agreements shall comply. >> Thank you. Five years shorter term agreements available tax. >> No. Yeah. A lot of I mean the amount of
people going into tax title has grown. >> It was relatively small. It is now bigger. because money's tighter and that's what happens. >> I would be curious to hear what the
what the um >> like what Mandy's thinking was behind making it a 5-year term if state law allows it to 10 years. >> Like what are the compelling reasons to do that? because I imagine she had a reason um versus the compelling reasons.
I I can imagine the reasons to make it longer. So that's question I'm going to ask the ether like I'm not sure I'm not sure what the process state law allows for 10 years. Are we allowed to
reduce it to five? Does anyone know what that put in our property? If state fail allows for 10 years then my guess is yes like and municipalities can probably but it's a reasonable question. >> Can um Tammy please invite Mandy to our next
meeting so we can ask her questions? >> That's what I would like to do. >> Okay. >> Are you do you have a job? >> Not right now. You can I'm okay if you object to it. >> No, I'm not objecting to it. >> Okay. At all.
>> Is anybody online? >> No. No. That's why we're so big. >> Mandy's been having some difficulty attending meetings lately. She's having some >> recording and it will be posted. >> Yeah. even if people are watching.
>> Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry to take that though. >> Okay. I'm just >> noting that. Yeah. So, but a request is fine. >> Um invite if possible >> understanding if that's totally if that doesn't work then she doesn't have to
say yes. >> Right. Then we can find another way to aggregate questions and >> ask and send them to her. Oh, I think a good idea would be sending her an email with questions. >> Yeah, the questions. >> How about we do that? >> How about you send her an email? But
she's very good on answering her email right away. >> Okay. Okay. >> So, could could we would you be would you be willing to draft an email to Mandy right now and people could ask what the questions they
have are right in them there? Um, my instinct is to not draft that as a group right now because that doesn't sound like a fun group project, but maybe people can send me their questions by >> like >> people send Mandy your questions. I'm I will not send them through.
>> Send Mandy your questions. >> It's a little more annoying for her to do it one by one, but >> Okay. So, we're making a collective agreement. We will send Mandy our questions. Yes. And you can cross that out and hopefully it'll all be
in writing. Yeah. All right. Great. You work to me. Cool. >> Is the road emphasize the next thing on the agenda? I don't want to skip. >> Last thing. >> Great. Um,
but before we're done, let's just recap for Tammy which things that we're ready for are ready for here. Okay, great. Um, my turn. >> Introducing an ordinance banning the use
of escar second generation anti-coagulant rodenticides on municipal owned and managed property. I've been working with Mass Audabon on this and they have a statewide campaign. They're trying to get it banned statewide, but
it keeps getting sent to committee and study by committee. >> No. Um, so they're what we're doing now is getting it passed municipality by municipality. After this, we could apply for a home roll petition. It's more of a
statement than a passing, but it's just to get the ball rolling. The other fun thing is that this is in the ways and means meeting um at the state level. So, it's also being talked about there. Um we have the full support of the health
director and the other folks, the department heads around town. The reason why we want to ban escars is because they do not solve the rodent problem. They ingest the rodenticide and then
they go about their little rodent lives and then predators who eat these rodents then are secondhand subjected to these uh rodenticides causes internal bleeding um lack of blood clotting and they die.
And that is our natural defense against rodents and we need them. Uh >> yeah, that's so ironic. So many other ways to and the other thing is like it's also you know they have those black
boxes. Uh the rodent will come in, eat it, go away. So it doesn't solve the problem. It just goes out into the wild. There are other ways to solve the problem. You can have um vitamin D, some sort of like corn gluten meal. Uh you
can use um birth control for rats. Um contraceptives. >> Uh let's do that. >> Condoms. >> Sorry. >> Little rubbers in every black box. Right.
>> Um >> it's just a pill. >> Not even I don't know what it is. Just a little >> produce. >> Um can actually trap a rat. >> Yeah. I mean rats are very smart. That's the issue is that it's not like catching
a mouse. It's >> you're you're dealing with a little bit of mastermind. >> So we got to you know trick them. That being said um yeah any questions? You know, it's very important. We love owls and
>> we love raptors. We love raptors. >> Um, if it is enforceable, I would definitely be inclined to do this as an ordinance, not a policy because >> it is >> like, >> well, the but the >> it can be passed however, >> but Michael was asking it preferred it
to be a policy rather than an ordinance. And I don't I'm confused have much knowledge on >> page 51 >> why that would affect him differently of the packet. >> Oh, got it. Yeah, I would also preference. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> I don't know how it affected >> it's codified or policy is >> but it doesn't change anything for him if it's policy or ordinance. I guess >> if he's in support then it doesn't >> Okay, cool. But it does matter that if he if someone in the future wasn't in
support this it they could change his policy. It just is always better. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Does this in any way uh stop the sale of redesicides? >> No. Because this is just municipal
property. So it's about the city of it. But it's not about >> Okay. So we can't stop the farmers exchange from selling it. Well, we can pass a home rule petition. >> Yeah. >> Um I think it's subject to mayoral approval. >> Okay. >> And I know she's iffy on our rodent
issue. So I want this to work and to be in play for then her to be able to see that >> probably because of the DPW trauma. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. Well, she'll get over that eventually. >> Yeah. And I think the D would also that
the policies that the D put in for DPW cleaning up is this. >> Okay. >> So, all right. >> We're all there. >> Okay. >> That also strengthens the need for an ordinance rather than a policy. >> Yes. Right.
>> Ordinance. >> Yeah. Ordinance. It's always stronger. >> Yeah. >> Cool. Sweet. >> Sounds great. Great. Okay. So then we feel that's ready for a hearing. >> Yeah.
>> Yes. Okay. So then let's look back and see what what are all the things that >> hearings next month and and Rachel's going to facilitate. I likely my plane gets in from
Europe at 4:30. So I might make it on likely that I will have the energy. Um, I will be jetlagged. Um, so the things that we want to discuss for hearings are E, correct me if I'm
wrong, Eevee first, >> um, the uh, uh, Patty's one on the tax title, excess equity, excess equity. um
tax sales. Yeah. And empides those four ready for hearings. So then we'll my plan is that we'll meet in May. Those will be ready for a hearing in
May. They can probably come to full council in June. In May. I'm tired. We vote on them in May. >> Um >> I'm sorry. dendicide excess equity e language and what was it called sales >> oh
>> and then still meet in June but we won't pass any >> we won't bring anything to full council >> yeah in June >> did you all rece see okay no um okay so the next meeting is scheduled on May 136
here and there unless other lights posted. Um, can I have a motion to adjurnn? >> All those in favor? >> I approve. Yes.
>> 857.