All right, we are going to get going. It is Tuesday, October 14th, 2025, and this is the economic development meeting being held at 6:30 p.m. We're going to call this meeting to order. This meeting is being recorded by the economic development committee. If any other persons present are doing the same at
time, you must notify the chair. Nobody in the room, nobody online. We are going to move on to a roll call members. Uh, councelor Mashero here. Councelor Gordon
here. Councelor Bulock here. Councelor Minhas. I didn't hear hear you. Council, you want to just check your mic? Make sure it's working one more time. There we go. I am here, sir.
Thank you. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Yep. All members are present. Um, next item on the agenda is approval of minutes from September 9th 9th, 2025. Can I get a motion? Motion to approve.
Second. Second. And we're going to take a roll call vote. Um, councelor Machero. Yeah. Hi, Councelor Gordon. Yes. Councelor Bullock. Yes.
Councelor Minhas. Yes. And I am a yes as well. So this is approval minutes. How you doing? Hi. Are you going to be doing public comment or because we're about to start and I'll
have you sign in real quick. Um, next item on the list is public comment. And we could start on the board up there. If anybody online, please raise your hand if you want to do public
comment. Okay, go ahead. Uh, Al, mic's off. Turn your mic on. Turn your mic on, Al. And state your name and address, please. And you'll have everybody will have three minutes
for public comment. Okay, I hear you. Try to unmute him. You see his mic is off. Can you hear me now? Yes, absolutely. It's all good. Go ahead, Al. Name and address, please.
Um, councilors, I I wanted to Sorry. Al Norman, uh, Grenell Street. I wanted to just make a a comment about an item on your agenda this evening, which is the tax title taking of two properties. Actually, it's a discussion. Um, I'm at a disadvantage because one of the
properties uh was clearly uh stated in the tax title that it was taken for $1,300. The other one I couldn't it was not stated in any of the materials in your packet uh how much was owed. But the the product the property of Seven River Street was owned by a family that
I that I am uh familiar with and it's a family that Howard Shepard was an excellent Mason in Greenfield and did work on many people's homes. And um I just was saddened by to to see that house was taken by a former collector. I want to make it clear that it's not the
current collector, but a former tax collector in Greenfield took this property for $1,300 in back taxes. looks like I think in 2014. Why it's 9 years before it's come to you for a discussion is beyond me. But the point I wanted to make was the system remains broken for
home equity if we have properties that are being taken for relatively small amounts of money um and uh not um allowed to come up with a repayment plan with the the owner of the property and uh other other kinds of help we could find. Maybe the the new elderly and
disabled task force could have helped a family like this. But I really think that this this property should not be I don't know where the family is and whether they are paying any attention to this, whether they care, whether they know, but it's just it's morally wrong in my opinion for a city uh to be taking
somebody's home or it's not a home actually. It's a very small building. But to take that take any building that belongs to somebody that they put equity into, to take it for such a small amount of money without coming up with a repayment plan makes no sense to me and and reminds me that our system is still
broken in Greenfield. The second property I can't comment on. This is why we need public comment after you make the presentation, not before, but I'll just leave it that I'm disturbed that these two properties are being discussed at all. Uh the second one, I don't know
how much is owed, but the first one shouldn't even be on our agenda. It should have been returned to the family with some kind of repayment plan uh uh possible unless the family doesn't care and doesn't want the property. But none of these things are apparent. But uh that's just the comment I want to make
about my un unhappiness with the the home equity uh tax taking pro uh project rules that we're using in Greenfield. Thank you for your time. Thank you all. Just pausing for a second. Somebody's joining the meeting. Um,
uh, go ahead, Stephanie. Name and address. Um, my name is Stephanie. I'm gonna go stay online and then I'll bounce to you. There's Stephanie online, too. Stephanie, thank you. Stephanie online. I'll be more clear this time. Hi, Stephanie Duclo. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes, we can. Thank you.
Okay. Yeah. I'd like to echo the same concerns I had um that Al has. Um I I have seen a lot of property taken for very little amount and it especially has occurred in my neighborhood. Um I I have real concern that this is appearing uh
after many many years, nine years I think is what Al had said. Um I question why now? uh and have the people who own the property been notified that they're, you know, potentially they could be living in another state. They don't know
they owe it. They don't know they're being seized. And I can tell you by the fact that I didn't receive a buyer's notices when certain construction like trenching happened in my neighborhood. I don't trust that everybody who's concerned or who has maybe stake in any
of this um stuff that's happening in planning and development or seizure of properties have been properly notified. Um so that is an a continuing concern for me. I've brought it up multiple times and definitely the process is
broken. Uh to seize to seize property for $1,200 to not have made some sort of you know outreach to them to negotiate making that current. Um it just seems
uh going against what we actually stand for and not taking people's homes or making people homeless for that. Thank you. Thank you. Um, anybody else online?
All right, we are going to go to the room. I'm just going to cross the here if you Yeah. Come on up to the table, Stephanie, and just say your name and address, please. Um, my name is Stephanie and I live at 323 Shelurn Center Road in Shelurn Falls, Massachusetts.
and I just wanted to address you guys and first of all say thank you guys so much for volunteering your time and working on all these committees because in the past couple months I've learned a lot and it doesn't seem like it's fun. So that being said, I do appreciate what you guys are doing. Um, I am here today
because I am working to put a veterinary clinic in a vacant space in Greenfield that is currently general commercial and it is prohibited for animal hospitals to be there and we don't have a definition for animal clinics. And as you guys
learned last month, um, the animal hospitals are blended with animal kennels because of how they were written in 1989 is a lot different from where vet hospitals are now. um that hospitals used to be all rural and mixed animal use and now we have a lot of different
models for what can be done. Um I'm hoping that today you guys can um discuss through it and look at the definition for animal clinic. And I know um it seems like the animal hospital kennel portion isn't being addressed as much right now, which is okay. Um in
terms of looking at those different areas, animal hospitals are um and clinics are both quiet areas. They employ a lot of local people, a lot of high schoolers, a lot of um a good range of different types of employees. They're not by traffic, they're low, they're
quiet, and um most vets are good neighbors. So um I'm hoping that this can go through today um and that we can help bring some more businesses, non-corporate businesses to Greenfield. All right. Thank you so much.
I'm going to go online one more time to make sure nobody else has any comments before we move on. And I am not seeing anybody. So, we're going to move on. Um, there are no public hearings tonight.
We will be moving on to motions, which is um, let me just pull that motion up real quick. Give me one second to get there. um to take from the table uh order number FY26-046. This was previously tabled in the last
EDC meeting. This part is about and I'll need a motion for somebody to take this off the table. Motion to take it from the table. This could go on first 45 minutes. Can I get a We need a second second.
We could tape later. Al, can you just mute yourself, please? Sorry. Yeah, sorry. Second from Mike. We're going to be discussing this with the planning board, right? No, right. No, I'll get into that after. Take room
table. I'm just try to take notes, too. FY 646 get a first and a second. All right. So, we have to do a roll call vote to take this from the table. So, councelor Meshero,
yes. Councelor Gordon, yes. Councelor Bulock, yes. Councelor Minhas, can you hear me? Yeah. Yep. Would you like to take this? You're kind of breaking up. So, and I'm a yes as
well. So, we now have the question off the table. Um, I'm going to re read the order just to refresh everybody's mind and then we can go into why we tabled this and have some open discussion. Um, so this is order number FY26-046. City Council move that be ordered that
the economic development committee take from the table. Oh, we already read all that. Um, take from the table order number FY2630 amend the zoning ordinance chapter 200 article 2 definition section 200-3 by adding language in bold and by deleting language in a strike through as
follows and attached exhibit A and further amends that the table of contents and index of the code and further that the non-substantiative changes to the numbering of the ordinance be permitted in order that it be in compliance with the numbering format of the code of the city of Greenfield which was tabled at the September 9th meeting to 2025 by the
EDC. Um so we had tabled this because there was some confusion between Ali's law and what we were trying to actually accomplish here. So um the concern that was brought forward was if we if we we were originally striking out animal
kennels and I have the old language in front of me here and and hospitals and replacing with animal medical centers. The pro the problem was the thought was that we weren't allowed to have zoning enforcement on animal kennels within Greenfield which after further
clarification from the state um we still are allowed to zone where we want animal kennels in Greenfield it. So um it was just we didn't want to take the risk of having anybody put in a kennel anywhere they want because we fully pulled it out of the zoning. So we decided to table
it. After further clarifications we have realized that we can keep the zoning in place. So, this is kind of we're uh Eric and I looked at this as a minor change because um we're actually
not doing as much to the zoning ordinance as we previously were. So, it was a non-substantiative change. Um so, that's kind of where we stand now. So, I'm going to open it up for discussion. Any counselors? Uh go ahead, councelor Minhos. Uh, can you hear me? Okay.
Yes, we can. Okay. Uh, yes. I think now I definitely um have a better idea of what this is about and I just like to say I appreciate the person for coming. Um, I didn't catch
your name because my connection is kind of off right now. But um anyone who's bringing in business to Greenfield, economic activity to Greenfield, especially when it's like they clarified a non-corporate way, we are very open to that and I just want to kind of say that
explicitly. So thank you for choosing Greenfield. I I hope through the whole process that you find everyone to be helpful and uh Greenfield is yearning for some economic growth and definitely for uh to heal our pets. this would be a
service that's much needed around here. So, thank you for that and we will try to do everything that we can um not just to help you but everyone else who's trying to generate some economic activity uh locally here. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other counselors? Yeah, I'm all for this. However, um I'm looking at the table of uses. Mhm. Now, the RC
it's by special permit, right? Rural residential. The RB is by special permit, suburban residential. in the RA, which is urban residential.
It's a yes if I'm reading this right. My my glasses are uh RA, it's a no right now. RA is a no. Yeah. Okay. Right. Thank you. So the problem I have with this is if you were to look at
the map, the zoning map, Well Street, the gen the general industry strip in Well Street and Chapman Street. Directly across the streets
from wells the GI is urban residential directly across the street. And now granted this happened years ago a lot I consider this spot zoning as uh there's also another area here where they stuck
in GI and and Chapman Street. So, I don't know if there's a way that we could amend this where um you could be in the GI except for certain areas because I just don't think that's fair
to those of us that live right across the street from general industry where it's a no in urban residential. which this is located.
Sorry. So, you're wanting to make it by special permit in general industry as well. Well, it's not special permit in um it's not special per in uh rural
residential. It's uh it's a uh it's a no in rural residential. So, what do you want to Sorry. What are you wanting to do in general and just in the GI? In the GI along Well Street and Chapman Street, I want to make it a no.
So, we we are going to have to amend this anyways based on the new language from the planning and zoning department. So, you know, that is something within our power to do that. Um, do I 100% agree with it? No. But um
because again this is an animal medic medical center clinic. This isn't a kennel. This isn't a hospital. There's not dogs outside barking. They're coming in. They're getting seen. They're leaving. Okay. Then why is it a no in the rural residential? That's a good question. Is there other businesses that are
allowed in rural residential? Um well I believe Dr. Funk is in rural residential and he's a vet. So, if anything, I would pref propose allowing it in rural residential rather than restricting it. These aren't noisy businesses. They're not
I understand that. Um, however, it's that strip is pretty uh of GI is pretty uh dense right now as it is and um it's just an inconvenience for
the folks who live there. Um, I I just don't think it's the place for that. And um, and neither do the neighbors. I mean, we're all pretty fed up of what goes on on Well Street as far as some many of the businesses, not all
of them. I mean, there's already a truck depot there now. There's Jim's Tree Service there now. And I wouldn't want to have a uh a dog hospital next to a uh gym's tree service because that probably wouldn't be very good for the for the pets, but because of this the obnoxious
noises out of that place. But so I don't know if there's a way we can make this work. Maybe by special permit. I mean that would be a compromise. But in the GI you couldn't you cannot you can at this
current moment not have automotive repair and servicing shop you cannot have an animal kennel and hospital but you can have a medical center clinic including accessory research and I think the distinction in language
here is between kennel and clinic. Correct. That's what we why we separated. Yeah. So, we we wanted to keep our zoning and there's going to be more work in the future probably on the animal kennel and hospital portion. Um, but we
wanted to keep it separate because if we went with the original approach of this, we were striking out animal kennels in total from our zoning ordinance, which means they could there's there's nothing preventing them anywhere in the city at that point, right? So, you know, my my argument here is, you know, if you look
at, you know, the the way rural residential applies throughout most of this, everything a lot of things are known in rural residential. It's kind of protected agriculture land out there anyways. and a lot of um things aren't even allowed there. Whereas, you know, the other
residentials, you do have more of a special permit process to do things. The GI industry, you know, is general industry. Um, I'd be comfortable making it by special permit in that location. You know, making sure that it it meets all the
requirements and that the additional traffic isn't going to cause any issues and things like that. It definitely belongs in in commercial districts, right? So, um I'm open to suggestions. We have to change this either way. So, you know,
um can I ask specifically? I don't I don't want to I didn't know last month and I don't want to make this decision based on an individual business, but is is that the location where the this business is wanting to go? Why don't we ask her? No, this is at Cherry Brown Plaza in a
place that's been vacant for 10 years. Okay. That's not GI. That's um that's general commercial and it's not allowed or animal hospitals are not allowed. Yeah. Even though there's where in my space within one mile as the bird flies, there's two other vet.
I think that's uh considered um RC. I think it's uh yeah, isn't it limited limited commercial up through there? Oh, that's uh that's high street. But animal medical center and
clinic is right here is allowed in LC and GC. Yeah, but that language isn't in there yet. We're adding this proposal. So we're adding this language as part. So before we were striking this out, the animal hospital and kennel and adding
this to replace it. Now we're leaving this and just adding this language with this statement in 200-3. So that would be the amendment we would have to make to this. So um the LC is Cherry rums in the LC and that's that's perfect. I mean
that's a great place for it. Um do you have the um I'll go look at the I honestly I honestly knowing that I'm like industry friend. Oh Rachel we haven't heard from you. I see your hands up. Join the discussion. Thank you. Sometimes we forget about the screen
right? It happens. Just shout in next time. Yeah. No, I'm I'm patient. I knew you would get to me. Um I first of all really appreciate that this was separated out because there was so much confusion last month. Um I was certainly confused and it I'm really glad that we
went, you know, that we tabled it, went back to the drawing board a little bit and really clarified what decisions applied to what. Um I'm excited about this change. Um I'd be excited to have more uh veterinary access and capacity
in Greenfield. Um, I think this is a great you that particular location is great, even though obviously this decision isn't about this particular project. Um, as far as the the, you know, this question of like the industrial place on Well Street, it
seems to me that like there's a bigger zoning conversation that needs to happen about Well Street, right? and like we're not going to solve that problem by keep by like peace meal keeping out certain types of businesses. Um obviously it's also a bigger
issue like it's going to take longer to address it in a holistic way. Um but I'm I'm hesitant to say you know oh we shouldn't allow animal clinics there because there's all these issues with businesses that are already there. I mean it also sounds like that wouldn't be a good location. So I kind of doubt
that a clinic would want to go in there. Um, you know, I think if allowing this by special permit is is what will let us all feel comfortable moving this forward, I'm I'm okay with that. Um, I'm happy with uh the language as currently
proposed. Um, and I'm excited to support this. Okay. Yeah. I'll say I'm happy to I understand the issue there on Wall Street because I have gotten letters about Jim's tree service and other
things for years. Um I think the issue actually is the GI section between Wells and Allen and the GI section extends much longer past Allen. Um,
so yeah, I mean I'm happy to have this go in as special permit for that for GI and support the rest of it. Um, with the hope that until this bigger zoning conversation can happen about that area. Um, if anything did want to
go in there would have to go before special permit. Okay. I could also support special permit in the GI as well. Um, I think that case again that's it's a bigger issue. Um,
I I I don't know how we fix it, but it's certainly worth talking about down the road. Y and like you said, it's not going to get fixed tonight, but Yep. And I just want to stay on what's on the agenda. So, if we want to talk about that, um, we could certainly put it in a future meeting. Um, I just don't want to
stray too far from the agenda. Right. All right. Um, so you know, my recommendation would be, you know, right now I'm going to read the order right now as it's stated, just so you're clear. And then I would recommend that somebody
would make a motion to um amend the motion to get rid of the previously stried out section that said uh that strike out animal kennel and hospital and replaced it with animal medical center and
clinic. and then added under section 200-3 the terms and words animal medical center and clinic has read in our packet. Right? And that will clean this all up. And then we would also want to amend the table of uses to have special permit
under the GI industry for animal medical center and clinic. This is kind of getting kind of messy, but I think it's doable. Well, that's only three three items. So again, as it reads now, order number FY26-0-30
um that the city council of Greenfield amend the zoning ordinance chapter 200 article 2 definition section 200 by adding language in bold and deleting language and strike through as follows as attached in exhibit A and further amends the table context and index of the code and further that non-substantial changes numbering of the
ordinance be permitted in that it be in compliance with the numbering format of the code of the city of Greenfield. So, um, anybody want to try to take a pass at that amendment? Can I do it? Yeah. Motion to end. I'd like to make a motion
to amend. Can I get a second on the motion to amend? Second. Okay. Motion to amend. And I'd like to remove animal kennel and hospital
and clinic and center and add section 200-3 terms and words and amend the table of uses to add medical center and clinic
and you want it by special permit and GI and special permit by GI. Yep. SP. All right. So, an amendment has been proposed. Now, we could open up discussion on the amendment. Does anybody have discussion on the
amendment? Okay, now we could take a vote on the motion as amended. Councelor Mashero, yes. Councelor Gordon, yes. Councelor Bullock, yes. Councelor Minhas,
yes. And I'm a yes as well. Um, now we need need to take a uh another vote, I believe, on how the motion is amended. And I have to read this back somehow. So,
um, so the motion has been amended. Let's see. Let's see. This gets so sloppy. And I called Kathy and talked to her for like 30 minutes how to do this tonight. Um, so order number FY26-030
as amended that the city council of Greenfield amends the zoning ordinance chapter 200 articles 2 definition section section 200 by adding language in bold and deleting language in strike through as follows attached in exhibit A which will be an amended exhibit A as stated here
that um removes removes a previous strikethrough of animal kennel and hospital adds under section 200-3 animal medical center and clinics to the table of uses and then strike uh require special permit in the
GI. That's it. And the table reflects that and the table reflects that accordingly. Correct. Okay. So now we're going to take a vote final vote as amended I guess
and That's going to be a roll vote roll call vote. So, councelor Mashero, yes. Councelor Gordon, yes. Councelor Bullock, yes. Councelor Minhas, yes. And I'm a yes as well. Take a deep
breath. Everybody wasn't so bad. It's just messy. It's just um All right. Right. So, next on the agenda, moving on is discussions.
And here we're we have a couple items. A couple items here to discuss. Um these are about the surplus property. So, these are only discussions. We're not voting on this tonight. Um we don't vote on authorizing this tonight at all. And if if the mayor doesn't mind if she
wants to join us at the table because I think she'd be an important part. Okay. over to a more comfortable chair. Thank you. Um yeah. So the first item on the agenda here uh mayor is review submit written comments and if any regarding the
surplus property of the potential sale of city own located at seven river street. So let's discuss seven river street first. You just give us a fill in on um that whole process. Yes. Um I'm just going to start by telling you that we the reason that both
of these properties are up. We had a property compliance meeting um where I believe that we talked about 28 parcels that are within the city of Greenfield. Um
none of this came from any desire to make any money for the city of Greenfield. Um the properties are situated throughout Greenfield. Um, I met Counselor Bullock as I was um actually
walking around looking at the parcels. They're problems for people in different neighborhoods because of the conditions of the properties. It's um some of them the city owns
uh you know um and some of them some of them property owners own some of them are properties that people are squatting in but they are in terrible disrepair one and a few of them people have just you know walked away from or haven't
paid their taxes on this one the first one seven river road that was taken for non-payment payment of taxes. Um the this was taken for non-payment of taxes. I think they the figure stated
was correct. Um I believe that both people are deceased and um it is definitely in disrepair. It is not a home. There is no intent for
the city to be making money. It is it it is an it is an eyesore for who has ever is the neighbor. Um and it it is to make it look better in
the neighborhood and and uh you know perhaps it would be something that could be back on tax rules. So um that's what I have to say about that. Okay. Um I think we'll just go through both of
them and then we'll open up the discussion afterwards once we because it's similar discussing for both. So the other one is uh 31 cheap side street that regarding the surplus property disposition and potential sale by the city. So 31 cheap side se uh street look like
a nicer property actually. Yes actually it is. Um that is also if you could try that as well. Buy that today. Yeah. Yeah, that would be something that would be um wonderful if it was back on
if someone was there. Um again this it's seen better days. It has definitely seen better days and it would be wonderful if if somebody could be there and um you know I am
I think you know I was the person that was a proponent of I'm no proponent of home equity theft as you know this is we have like 28 or 30 of them across the city you know
several of them on Deerfield Street many of them within certain neighborhoods and it really bring the whole neighborhood down. So, we are walking around seeing what we can do. Um I actually I thought we were putting three of them on. There's another one on
Country Club Road. So, we're seeing what we can do and if you folks have any suggestions for what to do, I welcome them. There's one on 425 Country Club Road. I thought that one was coming on at once. We put them out 30 days notice. We put them to any departments if
anybody here has better suggestions but they've been on for six or seven years the you know the we put them out to the families I actually looked while I was sitting here you know um they go to the estates of um so it appeared to me the
first one I didn't get a chance to to you know to review all the family histories I googling all I was sitting here but I know the first one Both people, it appeared to me, had passed away. And it can sit there vacant and looking like that for more time. I have
no desire for this. It's not a money maker. It's to make the It's to improve our city. Yeah. So, if it stays the same way, it's okay with me. But we're looking at them. It's a real, you know, the two that I was looking at where you are. Oh, yeah. One of them is a real issue.
Yeah. It's It's just a travesty in certain neighborhoods. we condemn them and you know still nothing happens. Um so what is the solution uh to that? But sometimes there would be you know each
one has a different story. Can I can I ask about 31 chief side? I'm on that one right now on the registry. That's that's unoccupied I'm assuming as far as it should be because it looks condemnable. Well, I mean, it's in
better shape than some, but I mean, it's overgrown uh around and what's the situation with the owners or past owners or uh
do we know? They haven't been there for a long time. I can't tell you the I I was sitting here. I re had more time to review the first one, but not there for a long time. So then if with the new and now's gone
with the new home equity because the city owns these any profit made beyond the tax the city retains. Um
whereas like a any new properties that would come before us, any profit that's made the city would then have to give to the the owner minus any of the cost follow all the
law. We actually at our problem property meeting, we had Gordon sit in for the whole meeting because each one each property that we are dealing with has all all kinds of issues. So it was
almost a two-hour meeting and he sat in for the whole thing and these two parcels it was okay for us to sell. I think part part of it is because of the length of time. Yeah. So um that Yeah. I'll go to Council Minhouse in a minute. I just
wanted to ask so um my my concern was you know like do do we have a a legal opinion on this? Because if you look at it and you have tax title taking
because we did it prior to the Supreme Court ruling, do we still have the obligation to track down the owners of that parcel and to try to somewhat pay the difference or like Maryanne said, since it was previously taken, that's not an
obligation anymore. And we're who's making that legal determination? Gordon was here for the meetings. I will double triple check, but I believe that these were fine to sell. But I'm going to double check because you asked I Yeah, I I was surprised that this came up.
Surprised that this was a question tonight. Um but I will before tomorrow night's meeting, I will check with Gordon again. I just know that the the general public's going to ask that question that and that's why that's why I came tonight. Well, and more than anything,
and I know, you know, just like one, this one is in my precinct, and um this one has had things um come and go from the lot at least over I mean, 31 31 cheap. Yeah, it's gone things have
come and gone from that lot like boats and uh machinery and you know, so I don't know someone's utilizing it to some degree. So regardless of like what the law says
ethically, I feel like the right thing to do is like make sure that the city has done diligence to re to reach out to the next of kin or whoever it went into to probate and offer them to pay the back taxes and retain this property
before it goes to sale. I understand with River Street it might be that everyone's deceased and the people that it was in probate and would have gone to didn't want it but um if like once that diligence has been done
then okay but for this property like that's a question I have is like has the next ofkin been been offered to retain this property for the back taxes and the fees. Um, I I think when the tax title
issue came up and I called I think I talked to Somerville and maybe it was Cambridge about what they were doing before the um Supreme Court came down with with the decision. Um, you know, that's basically what they
were doing was they were offering for people next of kin to retain the land. I want to go to councelor Minha real quick. So, a couple things just want to piggy back off of many of the things that have
been said. One, it's a shame that the city would do this. Um, and this did not happen under your leadership, uh, Mayor Jenny, but under the fact that you can take anyone's property is, you know, I I don't know. I don't want to be idealistic, but I I don't believe in
that at all. That's the person's property. But um for a small amount like $1,300, like that's kind of insane. I don't know what the circumstances were with that person. I mean, were they just belligerent, didn't want to pay and
ended up losing $60,000, $50,000 worth of a of a parcel, but sad that that has happened. But also what's kind of weird to me is what like maybe I don't know the ins and outs but for the per first
property we are told that it's around 1320 something dollars that that person owned or those people owed but what was the amount for the second okay so I can tell you that for the second so I want to but I do want to
tell you one thing um that sometimes what happens is so I'll tell you what it is for a second but I think what happens sometimes is that like the people got older or died and walked away
you know what I mean well dead people don't walk away but I think that that um that it it like many people you it's a taking and then people will it back a taking and
then people will pay it back. So for the first for the taking on this one um there's two pages on this. Uh so let's see on 31 I'm on the registry. Okay. So this was taken
several times. Um, first time it was taken was for $2,000 $2,000 and then they paid it back which is 2002.
And another time it was taken for $2,000 uh $2,900. They must have paid that one back collector of taxes. Um,
more recently, that was in 2003. Oh. Oh, maybe it looks like this one was foreclosed on. It was a sale of a foreclosed property in 2006. Then it was owned by Francis Kennedy, right? 2012. And then
Yeah. Yeah. And that was taken for $834. What year was that? That was 2007. and then 2014, 307. I think that is close to the last time
and the final taking I think in 2019. No, the last one the very last time 2019. never paid that back is $3,456. And they didn't they never paid that back. They didn't pay that back.
And that was this Francis Kennedy. Yeah. That they were the last owner life estate and then it went to affidavit of T. So, you know, so basically for $3,000,
that person wasn't able to retain a property worth over $200,000. Well, it looks like he might have died. Oh, so this Oh, so this 31 Cheapside Street person has also died. The last I'm assuming so because it says
life life estate. Interesting. Yeah, it looks like originally the life estate was under Margaret and then our Francis bought it from the life estate for $100 and then it was bought again for 115 from Miriam
Francis Kennedy then it was foreclosed on then it was bought back by Francis Kennedy and then it was pretty much taken by the city. So it's bounced around quite a few times. Um, not that it makes it any different, but I do I do want to go to councelor Gordon because I
see her hands up there. Thanks. Um, yeah, I mean I understand and I think we all agree that we don't want the city taking people's property and you know any case where it's not absolutely necessary. Um, but I do think that there are cases in which I
understand the necessity. Like I'm not going to go so far as to say I don't think it should ever happen. Um because you know unfortunately there are folks who just wouldn't ever pay their property taxes if there if the city had no leverage to make them do it. Um and
and or you know there are cases where folks die, they leave town, there are squatters, you know, properties are in disrepair, which it sounds like is the case with both of these. Um and I think the city has to be able to deal with that. uh because ultimately the city has a responsibility to you know the
neighbors as well as you know the people who who own this property at some point. So you know I'm I'm certainly in favor of us trying everything else first. Um and I'm I'm very much in favor of us doing due diligence to you know make sure that
the heirs of the estate you know or whatever have know that this is happening have the information you know have the opportunity to to do something about it before something else happens with it. But ultimately, I'm glad that the city is is taking care of this because it sounds like it's a real
necessity for the whole neighborhood. blacks. Not not to mention there's several of them in this throughout the city that it depending on whether it's auctioned off for either of these um or
sold um I don't know if there's an option to I mean if it's auctioned off and bought for a song um can the city hunt down airs and and
pay restitution or I mean is that I believe like go into the weeds. I mean this one has heirs. This one as of like September like this Miriam was alive. Uhhuh. Um. Yeah. So yeah. So, I mean, that's my only
I I I agree with Rachel that I think that um there needs to be a a current a new process that can deal with some of the bladed properties that that are very real that we have that do a long a long
history of back taxes. But for some of these, like I know for this one, I've seen things come and go off that property over the years. Um, and like a Google search shows me that people there's heirs to this property or that
potentially. And so they should be able to pay the $4,000 and retain and bring it, you know, bring it into compliance in terms of Oh, code. Yeah. I I do want to tell you that I just printed and put on Patty's
desk the attorney bill for this month and it was $20,000 and almost all of it was to do with problem properties. I call it the problem properties, but they actually call it property compliance, which is probably a better
way of saying it for those of you who are better wordsmiths than me. Mhm. But around these 28 to 30 properties that are really making it absolutely miserable for neighbors and you know very well what they are. I just solved
one of them and I was like hallelujah. Yeah. People are very happy about that in my precinct. Y very close to another and I'm very close to another and you have no idea what it was like. I told you know one of them I have people who actually they have master's degrees in
squatting you know and I have put every all every ounce of my being into this they they they've never paid an ounce of rent um or anything and they've been living in a house for 10 years
just last week we got them out and they were making life absolutely miserable for everyone on an entire street and so that's why I brought the attorney in. But $20,000 worth of bills. Now, you could think that the mayor was not a good person for for trying to move
something along. It is not that I am trying to make any money at all for the city. It is that we are trying to get something so that it looks like a better so it looks better. And you saw me. I was walking on a Friday night. Yes. Trying to look at a sidewalk that and
some mostly it's many times is people are getting a lot older. Um or people died, you know, or their spouse died and this I went up and knocked on this guy's door, the man that owns those two parcels. We're not don't
please don't say the street. Yeah. Um and you know he can't afford either one of them. They are just literally falling down. They're hazardous. This one on River Street, I believe, is hazardous. The city does not have the
resources to take care of these. We don't have the DPW staff to keep them up. We own uh two pages worth of these parcels. Um and
we can't keep them up. We should be keeping them nice looking, right? uh be you know as property owners we we should be setting the example first but I am certainly not trying to take things out make money and take them out like oh I want to take a house for $3,000 that is
not me it's not what I want to do it's that we we said okay these ones after the meetings the they were all of us I had the fire chief this is the resources that we put in to one room it was a a two-hour meeting with the fire chief um
the police chief, the health inspector, the building and two people from from building, the attorney, um uh I forget who else was in the room, but all of these folks trying to think what can we do for these um the
assessors were in there, uh the um and the treasurers, everybody find together. But it is not about making money. It's about what can we do? They're to it's a it's a total mess. They're condemned way down and a lot on Deerfield Street. It's terrible. Many in
your precinct. And um the sheriff's office was going to come. They offered to because one that we have that's very near something else happening. They offered some guidance on um eviction. M
it's really a terrible problem in a very poor city and I so anyway so any help that you have or guidance I would totally appreciate. Yeah I'm going to say something and I'm going to go to councelor Minhas who's
hands up. So I first I think it's this is an important step, right? Because you've identified an issue that's been going on within the city for many many many years that has been blatantly probably ignored, right? Because it it was more troublesome than
what people wanted to tackle, right? So we know we have this problem. We know we have these properties that somehow we acquired somewhere down the road that are blighted. Um, and we need to address that issue. And also in a time where, you know, there
might be developers out there who would buy these properties. And, you know, you see, you know, there's one developer in Greenfield, I I've seen him fix up probably six houses on Conway Street already, you know, like, so there are opportunities now in Greenfield since we need housing that somebody might buy
these properties and put put new housing in, right? So, um, it's just we want to make sure we're following the right procedures. And it sounds like you collectively, you and your staff have identified the right way to do it. And you've had $20,000 worth of legal opinion. One month
in one month. So, you have done some your due diligence. It's just I think again, it's one of those things that people are they don't see those meetings because they're they're probably not public. That was a p that is a private meeting and I actually cannot ask it ask folks
to that. I'm not trying to keep that. Um, you know, it's not that I was It's just Yeah. Like, especially with a couple. Yeah. So, I think I think, you know, just knowing that you're you're taking those steps. I I think, you know, having
more of a public comment saying the Greenfield realizes we city of Greenfield realizes we have these issues within our city. we're identifying these issues and trying to resolve them in the best legal manner, you know, so people understand that the process is being followed. But I'm gonna go to councelor
Minhos because what you're going to get is a lot of people doubted saying it's lack of transparency, right? Because that's what everybody hears. So councelor Minhas and you're muted, sorry, uh my computer's giving me issues. Um, as you might know, this was
kind of one of my essential points to my campaign and when I was running and when I was talking to constituents, um, was the home equity theft stuff. And I we were able to bring about the
elderly and disabled taxation uh, committee for to tackle issues like this. Um and in that research I had remembered that there was a retroactivity period for this. So the Supreme Court has ruled right that up
until 2023 uh anyone whose property as of May 25th, 2023, uh they can claim okay that the city has sold their property and that they are due excess equity.
um that the city essentially took. And I see that as a a travesty that cities were doing this and this is not just Greenfield. Many other cities were doing this. Um I think there's two aspects to this. One
is yeah, you can say potentially some properties were before 2023. Therefore, it gives us the legal um authority to sell the property. like yes, we have the legal authority to sell the property, but take all of the profit from that
property and retain that for the city. Legally speaking, we might be able to do that, but that could open us up to some litigation. Let's say that there's some sort of family member or heir who, you
know, is like, okay, that kind of potentially is close to 2023. There have been cases filed in Massachusetts that don't exactly fall on that May 2023 line that have pursued this. So, you know, to save the city money and also I just
think it's the right thing. you know, it's not like take what the city was owed in taxes and then other than that, even if it's like $15,000 or in the second case would be um hundreds of
thousands of dollars, I think it's the obligation of the city as the you know administrative authority to find the heirs and the people who this belongs to. I think it's a it would be a good
gesture for the city. Um necessarily like a hundred a few hundred,000 are kind of like a drop in the bucket for the city. And like the mayor was saying, the city is not involved in the business or I should say now the city is not involved in the business of taking
properties for to make money off of it. some from that's what I've gleaned from what uh Mayor Jenny has said and I think if we want to stick to that we should ensure that hey whatever properties that we're selling let's retain the taxes
that were owed to us and then other than that find to the best of our ability you know we don't live in the stone age there's paper trails and electronic records and all these things and everybody has an ID and an address um find the heirs if the if the if the
property owners have deceased and give them over however much is in excess. I think that would be uh something that's done in good faith and is just the right thing to do. Um yes.
Thank you. Um any other comments on this discussion item? Um the go I just wanted to say the the seven river one is commercial you know in case anybody wanted to know that.
But um again this had it really was just to make it look it was just to get two of them. If if if you all want the city just to hold them I'm okay with that. I do not
care at all. It was We have like 30 of them. If people want us just to hold them and do nothing, but we can't afford to keep them up, you know. Um like the Green River School with the
roof caving in. Um and then like it's really hard. We have I was another one I can't talk about because Thank you. So figure out. Well, the point and my only my only thing I just want to reiterate the point isn't I think many
of the constituents or or people that I come across the point isn't hey the city shouldn't sell them we should just have them in eternity generating nothing no revenue. The point is we sell them uh gather what was owed in taxes and then
the rest should be given to the appropriate owners. That that's it. and not that the city should have them and let them just rot away. We we have one person associated with one of the problem properties that
no one can find for eight years. Nobody. Eight years. Yeah. And that that's the problem you're going to have in some situations, right? Um, I I also think that if if you are going to expect the city's legal department to be doing deed research and
finding these owners and and trying to give them reparations that it's only fair that those legal expenses would be deducted from the sale value, right? Um, in return to the city. So, I think we can all agree, yes, the great thing is to get this back, get these properties off our books because we we we're not a
property management company at Greenfield. Um and doing the right thing where appropriate makes sense to circumstances. Um I I will do you hold the money in a separate
separate account for you know two years and see if anybody comes forward. The other part the other part is is you know if they're auctioned off if a propertyy's auctioned off and it and it and it's bought or assault
by the time you know you crew $20,000 in legal fees to to do this may be nothing left to give anybody you know. So, you know, you auctioned off a home for,
you know, $10,000 and you got, you know, $15,000 worth of expenses. There's it there's nothing to give, right? I mean, there's theor there's a very clear the home equity law is very clear about how a city like none
of that is a question we have to answer. Thank God. Right. Well, I think what we need procedurally in place, and I know tonight's just a discussion, like we don't have to make any formal decisions here. Um, but I think what I would like to see
procedurally is that when something like this comes in front of us that we can clearly see this is the steps that were made to contact the next of kin or whoever was identified in the probate. This is how many months it's been. so that we can
say, "Okay, this person has been we've been trying to get in touch with this person for eight years. It's like it's okay. we can now take this for title and and auction it and follow the procedure that the home ex
home equity um legislation put into place where you're you know there's a formula for how you um figure out what your what your cost is and it's like anything over $125,000 um whatever. So
all I care about is that I can adequately see that the next of kin or the property owner has been contacted and given um like first right of refusal to pay the taxes
um and retain the property before with an adequate amount of time to respond. That's and maybe that's an internal procedure if it doesn't exist that's like you know we do this research for 6 months and then it moves forward or whatever. I know
Kelly Barner gave us a presentation forever ago about this and um there was some internal procedure that the city followed in terms of like lengths of time and response and at that point it didn't feel um it didn't feel to me
spacious enough for like a next of kin to be notified. Yeah, was something else entirely. Yeah, I agree with you. I totally agree with you on that. What but what we're finding or I see like with this aging population with this one particular like you have
seven river you know yeah in cases like that where there's no one and it's done and it's like it's clear move let's move and let's do it and let's hold the money as we should and
follow the law. Yeah. and get the blighted properties hopefully in the hands of people who need houses and want to fix them up, right? You know, you just want it to look better for your neighbors. You know, I live in a neighborhood. You all live in neighborhoods. You know what I mean?
I mean, you know, I want to walk on that sidewalk. Me, too. Oh, me too. I just I just fought for a sidewalk for four years to be open. I hear you. He moved the barricades, though. Thank you, DPW. He moved barricades. Thank you. Thank you guys.
Thank you. Any other further discussion on this item? I'm seeing no. Um so that moves us on to the next item which is the next meeting. Um there's a joint public hearing with the plan.
Well, no, I'm reading the wrong Ah, I got two newspaper in front of me. Is it November 6th or did that get moved? They were talking somebody was talking about December. No, I think we ended up getting a forum
on November 6. We did. So, the next meeting is a joint public hearing with the planning board November 6, 2025 at 6 PM city hall meeting uh second floor Zoom or hybrid unless otherwise posted. Can I get a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn.
Second. All right, we got a roll call out of that one. Um, yes. Councelor Mashero, yes. Councelor Gordon, yes. Councelor Bullock, yes. Councelor Minhos, yes. And I'm a yes as well. Thank you for
your time, everybody. We appreciate it. Thanks everyone and thanks for being here, Mayor. It was really helpful. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Have a good night.